Reciprocity And The Emergence Of Power Laws In Social Networks

Research in network science has shown that many naturally occurring and technologically constructed networks are scale free, that means a power law degree distribution emerges from a growth model in which each new node attaches to the existing network with a probability proportional to its number of links (= degree). Little is known about whether the same principles of local attachment and global properties apply to societies as well. Empirical evidence from six ethnographic case studies shows that complex social networks have significantly lower scaling exponents γ ~ 1 than have been assumed in the past. Apparently humans do not only look for the most prominent players to play with. Moreover cooperation in humans is characterized through reciprocity, the tendency to give to those from whom one has received in the past. Both variables — reciprocity and the scaling exponent — are negatively correlated (r = -0.767, sig = 0.075). If we include this effect in simulations of growing networks, degree distributions emerge that are much closer to those empirically observed. While the proportion of nodes with small degrees decreases drastically as we introduce reciprocity, the scaling exponent is more robust and changes only when a relatively large proportion of attachment decisions follow this rule. If social networks are less scale free than previously assumed this has far reaching implications for policy makers, public health programs and marketing alike.

[1]  Jacob L. Moreno,et al.  Who shall survive? : foundations of sociometry, group psychotherapy, and sociodrama , 1953 .

[2]  E. Hill Journal of Theoretical Biology , 1961, Nature.

[3]  R. Merton The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[4]  C. Lévi-Strauss The Elementary Structures of Kinship , 1969 .

[5]  M. Mauss The gift : Forms and functions of exchange in Archaic Societies / Marcel Mauss , 2020 .

[6]  R. Trivers The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism , 1971, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[7]  Derek de Solla Price,et al.  A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes , 1976, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[8]  P. Killworth,et al.  Informant accuracy in social network data IV: a comparison of clique-level structure in behavioral and cognitive network data , 1979 .

[9]  A. Barnard,et al.  Politics and History in Band Societies , 1982 .

[10]  G. Wilkinson Reciprocal food sharing in the vampire bat , 1984, Nature.

[11]  John Scott Social Network Analysis , 1988 .

[12]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[13]  S. Redner How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution , 1998, cond-mat/9804163.

[14]  A. Châtelain,et al.  The European Physical Journal D , 1999 .

[15]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[16]  M. Bollig Staging Social Structures: Ritual and Social Organisation in an Egalitarian Society. The Pastoral Pokot of Northern Kenya , 2000 .

[17]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Error and attack tolerance of complex networks , 2000, Nature.

[18]  Cohen,et al.  Resilience of the internet to random breakdowns , 2000, Physical review letters.

[19]  L. Amaral,et al.  The web of human sexual contacts , 2001, Nature.

[20]  M Girvan,et al.  Structure of growing social networks. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[21]  B. Wellman Computer Networks As Social Networks , 2001, Science.

[22]  J. Montoya,et al.  Small world patterns in food webs. , 2002, Journal of theoretical biology.

[23]  David M. Pennock,et al.  Winners don't take all: Characterizing the competition for links on the web , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  Sergey N. Dorogovtsev,et al.  Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets to the Internet and WWW (Physics) , 2003 .

[25]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  The Structure and Function of Complex Networks , 2003, SIAM Rev..

[26]  M. Newman,et al.  Identifying the role that animals play in their social networks , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[27]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Superfamilies of Evolved and Designed Networks , 2004, Science.

[28]  M. Newman Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Foundations of Human Sociality - Economic Experiments and Ethnographic: Evidence From Fifteen Small-Scale Societies , 2004 .

[30]  Gordon White,et al.  Network Analysis and Ethnographic Problems: Process Models of a Turkish Nomad Clan , 2004 .

[31]  Wallace Koehler,et al.  Information science as "Little Science":The implications of a bibliometric analysis of theJournal of the American Society for Information Science , 2001, Scientometrics.

[32]  G Caldarelli,et al.  Preferential exchange: strengthening connections in complex networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[33]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets to the Internet and WWW , 2004 .

[34]  Ajay Mehra The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science , 2005 .

[35]  David R. Gibson Concurrency and Commitment: Network Scheduling and Its Consequences for Diffusion , 2005 .

[36]  J. L. Gould,et al.  The Quarterly Review of Biology , 2005, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[37]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[38]  Kinship, Networks, and Exchange , 2008 .