Preferences, Homophily, and Social Learning

We study a model of social learning in networks where agents have heterogeneous preferences, and neighbors tend to have similar preferences—a phenomenon known as homophily. Using this model, we resolve a puzzle in the literature: theoretical models predict that preference diversity helps learning, and homophily slows learning, while empirical work suggests the opposite. We find that the density of network connections determines the impact of preference diversity and homophily on learning. When connections are sparse, diverse preferences are harmful to learning, and homophily may lead to substantial improvements. In a dense network, preference diversity is beneficial. The conflicting findings in prior work result from a focus on networks with different densities; theory has focused on dense networks, while empirical papers have studied sparse networks. Our results suggest that in complex networks containing both sparse and dense components, diverse preferences and homophily play complementary, beneficial roles.

[1]  Pooya Molavi,et al.  Information Heterogeneity and the Speed of Learning in Social Networks , 2013 .

[2]  Matthew D. Lieberman,et al.  Birds of a feather , 1994, Nature Structural Biology.

[3]  Damon Centola An Experimental Study of Homophily in the Adoption of Health Behavior , 2011, Science.

[4]  Antonio Guarino,et al.  Social learning with local interactions , 2010 .

[5]  R. Burt Structural Holes and Good Ideas1 , 2004, American Journal of Sociology.

[6]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The role of social networks in information diffusion , 2012, WWW.

[7]  Lones Smith,et al.  Pathological Outcomes of Observational Learning , 2000 .

[8]  Timothy G. Conley,et al.  Learning About a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana , 2010 .

[9]  Drew Fudenberg,et al.  Word-of-mouth learning , 2004, Games Econ. Behav..

[10]  Munther A. Dahleh,et al.  Rate of Convergence of Learning in Social Networks , 2009 .

[11]  Shachar Kariv,et al.  Observational learning under imperfect information , 2004, Games Econ. Behav..

[12]  S. Goyal,et al.  Learning from neighbours , 1998 .

[13]  M. Degroot Reaching a Consensus , 1974 .

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

[15]  Ilan Lobel,et al.  Lower bounds on the rate of learning in social networks , 2009, 2009 American Control Conference.

[16]  B. Golub,et al.  How Homophily Affects the Speed of Learning and Best Response Dynamics , 2012 .

[17]  M. Macy,et al.  Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties1 , 2007, American Journal of Sociology.

[18]  Ilan Lobel,et al.  Social learning and aggregate network uncertainty , 2013, EC '13.

[19]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[20]  X. Vives How Fast do Rational Agents Learn , 1993 .

[21]  Douglas Gale,et al.  Bayesian learning in social networks , 2003, Games Econ. Behav..

[22]  Xavier Vives,et al.  The Speed of Information Revelation in a Financial Market Mechanism , 1995 .

[23]  Marshall Van Alstyne,et al.  The Diversity-Bandwidth Tradeoff , 2010 .

[24]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Homogeneity in confiding relations , 1988 .

[25]  Marco Cipriani,et al.  Herd Behavior and Contagion in Financial Markets , 2008 .

[26]  Manuel Mueller-Frank,et al.  A general framework for rational learning in social networks , 2011 .

[27]  Sheldon M. Ross,et al.  Stochastic Processes , 2018, Gauge Integral Structures for Stochastic Calculus and Quantum Electrodynamics.

[28]  Alan T. Sorensen,et al.  Social learning and health plan choice. , 2006, The Rand journal of economics.

[29]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Friends and neighbors on the Web , 2003, Soc. Networks.

[30]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[31]  S. Bikhchandani,et al.  You have printed the following article : A Theory of Fads , Fashion , Custom , and Cultural Change as Informational Cascades , 2007 .

[32]  Matthew O. Jackson,et al.  Naïve Learning in Social Networks and the Wisdom of Crowds , 2010 .

[33]  Asuman E. Ozdaglar,et al.  Opinion Fluctuations and Disagreement in Social Networks , 2010, Math. Oper. Res..

[34]  A. Banerjee,et al.  A Simple Model of Herd Behavior , 1992 .

[35]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[36]  Jacob K. Goeree,et al.  Social learning with private and common values , 2006 .

[37]  Antonio Guarino,et al.  Bayesian Social Learning with Local Interactions , 2010, Games.

[38]  Dylan Walker,et al.  Tie Strength, Embeddedness, and Social Influence: A Large-Scale Networked Experiment , 2014, Manag. Sci..

[39]  M. Jackson,et al.  An Economic Model of Friendship: Homophily, Minorities and Segregation , 2007 .

[40]  Paolo Pin,et al.  Identifying the roles of race-based choice and chance in high school friendship network formation , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  I. Lobel,et al.  Information Diffusion in Networks through Social Learning , 2014 .