Different patterns of social closeness observed in mobile phone communication

We analyze a large-scale mobile phone call dataset containing information on the age, gender, and billing locality of users to get insight into social closeness in pairs of individuals of similar age. We show that in addition to using the demographic information, the ranking of contacts by their call frequency in egocentric networks is crucial to characterize the different communication patterns. We find that mutually top-ranked opposite-gender pairs show the highest levels of call frequency and daily regularity, which is consistent with the behavior of real-life romantic partners. At somewhat lower level of call frequency and daily regularity come the mutually top-ranked same-gender pairs, while the lowest call frequency and daily regularity are observed for mutually non-top-ranked pairs. We have also observed that older pairs tend to call less frequently and less regularly than younger pairs, while the average call durations exhibit a more complex dependence on age. We expect that a more detailed analysis can help us better characterize the nature of relationships between pairs of individuals and distinguish between various types of relations, such as siblings, friends, and romantic partners.

[1]  A-L Barabási,et al.  Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Kimmo Kaski,et al.  Communication with Family and Friends across the Life Course , 2015, PloS one.

[3]  Robin I. M. Dunbar,et al.  Communication in social networks: Effects of kinship, network size, and emotional closeness , 2011 .

[4]  Kimmo Kaski,et al.  Sex differences in social focus across the life cycle in humans , 2015, Royal Society Open Science.

[5]  Robin I. M. Dunbar,et al.  Social networks, support cliques, and kinship , 1995, Human nature.

[6]  Kimmo Kaski,et al.  Peer relations with mobile phone data: Best friends and family formation , 2017, ArXiv.

[7]  Matthijs Kalmijn,et al.  Longitudinal analyses of the effects of age, marriage, and parenthood on social contacts and support , 2012 .

[8]  Robin I. M. Dunbar,et al.  Romance and reproduction are socially costly. , 2015 .

[9]  W. Zachary,et al.  An Information Flow Model for Conflict and Fission in Small Groups , 1977, Journal of Anthropological Research.

[10]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Sex differences in intimate relationships , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[11]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[12]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  Inferring user demographics and social strategies in mobile social networks , 2014, KDD.

[13]  Konstantin Avrachenkov,et al.  Cooperative Game Theory Approaches for Network Partitioning , 2017, COCOON.

[14]  Mo Columb,et al.  Statistical analysis: sample size and power estimations , 2016 .

[15]  Ciro Cattuto,et al.  Dynamics of Person-to-Person Interactions from Distributed RFID Sensor Networks , 2010, PloS one.

[16]  Laura Radaelli,et al.  Are You Your Friends’ Friend? Poor Perception of Friendship Ties Limits the Ability to Promote Behavioral Change , 2016, PloS one.

[17]  J. F. Howell,et al.  Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures with Unequal N’s and/or Variances: A Monte Carlo Study , 1976 .

[18]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  Friendship networks and social status , 2012, Network Science.

[19]  Welch Bl.  THE GENERALIZATION OF ‘STUDENT'S’ PROBLEM WHEN SEVERAL DIFFERENT POPULATION VARLANCES ARE INVOLVED , 1947 .

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

[21]  S. Sawilowsky.  Very large and huge effect sizes , 2009 .

[22]  David Westerman,et al.  Young adults' use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associations with attachment style , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[23]  Piotr Sapiezynski,et al.  Measuring Large-Scale Social Networks with High Resolution , 2014, PloS one.

[24]  Jari Saramäki,et al.  Spatial patterns of close relationships across the lifespan , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[25]  Didier Sornette,et al.  Discrete hierarchical organization of social group sizes , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[26]  K. Hawkes,et al.  Human longevity: The grandmother effect , 2004, Nature.

[27]  Tom A. B. Snijders,et al.  Social Network Analysis , 2011, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[28]  Borae Jin,et al.  Mobile Communication in Romantic Relationships: Mobile Phone Use, Relational Uncertainty, Love, Commitment, and Attachment Styles , 2010 .

[29]  P. Lachmann,et al.  The Grandmother Effect , 2011, Gerontology.

[30]  Thomas V. Pollet,et al.  Exploring variation in active network size: Constraints and ego characteristics , 2009, Soc. Networks.

[31]  Ram Dantu,et al.  Mobile Social Closeness and Communication Patterns , 2010, 2010 7th IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference.

[32]  Sri Hastuti Kurniawan,et al.  Older people and mobile phones: A multi-method investigation , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[33]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Reality mining: sensing complex social systems , 2006, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[34]  Jari Saramäki,et al.  Small But Slow World: How Network Topology and Burstiness Slow Down Spreading , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[35]  Fanglin Chen,et al.  StudentLife: assessing mental health, academic performance and behavioral trends of college students using smartphones , 2014, UbiComp.

[36]  Jari Saramäki,et al.  Persistence of social signatures in human communication , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  Kimmo Kaski,et al.  Spatiotemporal correlations of handset-based service usages , 2012, EPJ Data Science.

[38]  John Scott.  What is social network analysis , 2010 .

[39]  S. Sawilowsky.  New Effect Size Rules of Thumb , 2009 .