In a highly digital world, the extensive information technologies (ITs) have shifted social relationships out of localized contexts and have dramatically reconfigured the way individuals create and develop their social networks. As IT and social landscape become inseparable, individuals’ self-conceptions and behavioral patterns have been pervasively challenged, giving way to “new concepts that embrace social-technological intertwinement,” and to derivative implications for people and communities (Carter and Grover, 2015, p. 391). It follows that new constructs and correlations are needed to interpret the dynamics of human behavior and, thus, the patterns of social networks development. In this front, both seminal and recent literature have posited that a milestone in the study of social networks is to explore and understand the interplay between similarity and social ties (Montoya et al., 2008; Mackinnon et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2012; Zubcsek et al., 2014; Dunbaret al., 2015; Bahns et al., 2016, etc.). The overarching assumption is that similarity plays a very important role as it stands for the linchpin of relationships initiation and formation (Bahns et al., 2016), and at the same time, it is a propelling factor for online social networks development, be they offline or online (Crandall et al., 2008; Lewis and Wimmer, 2010). Given the wide array of definitions and research directions on social network development, hereinafter, we will refer to it pursuant to Collin et al.’s (2011) dimensions, namely, strengthening and building communities over time, strengthening existing relationships, reinforcing sense of belonging and collective identity, developing new relationships, creating convergence of online and offline spaces. These dimensions are in accordance with Scott’s (2000) parameters of social network development, namely: size, intensity (i.e. an indicator of the relationship strength and closeness to a social network), durability (i.e. the activation degree of a social relationship), density (i.e. the level of interconnectedness within a social network) and dispersion (i.e. indicator of the existence of various social groups within a network, e.g. from both online and offline environments). Even though similarity is deemed to play a key role in achieving a better awareness of the interaction and communication patterns defining peers relationships in social networks, few studies have approached it within integrative and interdisciplinary frameworks, as Gehlbach et al. (2016, p. 343) clearly stated: “as compelling and robust as the similarity-relationship research is, important scientific and applied gaps plague our understanding of these associations.” Moreover, the authors underline that their study is the first experimental investigation addressing actual similarities as a means to developing ongoing relationships and, thus, “striving to contribute to the scientific theories linking similarity and relationships” (Gehlbach et al., 2016, p. 343). Likewise, Mackinnon et al. (2011) claimed the same research gap, affirming that “though it is well-documented that people are more likely to be in relationships with similar others, scant research has examined how this general tendency plays out in day-to-day social situations.” In this respect, the authors urge that this phenomenon has “profound implications worthy of further pursuit” (p. 880).