Informing on a Rugged Landscape: Homophily versus Expertise

Introduction Clients in an uncertain world can benefit from being informed about the choices available to them. In some settings, such as grade school education, that process is largely dictated by an informing agent, such as a teacher. In others, key choices--such as what major to choose in college--are more likely to rest in the hands of the client being informed. In these latter settings, an interesting question becomes: "Where should the client go for information regarding the choices that must be made?" There would seem to be three obvious places that a client--henceforth referred to as an agent for the sake of consistency with standard modeling terminology--might go in search of insights. (1) The agent could seek the advice of an expert. Alternatively, the agent could seek the guidance of other agents. Within the "other agents" category, however, there is a further spectrum of choices from (2) agents very similar in characteristics to the original client (homophilic agents) to (3) agents very different from the original (heterophilic agents). An extensive empirical research stream on the diffusion of innovations strongly supports the generalization that most informing takes place through networks of homophilic agents (Rogers, 2003, p. 307). From an information theory perspective, however, this preference seems odd. Presumably, both experts and heterophilic agents offer much greater potential for knowledge gain since their respective knowledge states differ most from that of the client seeking to be informed. Nevertheless the pattern of preference for homophily is observed over and over in the real world. One explanation that has been proposed for homophilic preference relates to the underlying complexity of the landscape upon which agents operate (Gill, 2010). In this conceptual scheme (Gill, 2011), an agent's state might be modeled as a collection of values (e.g., 0s and 1s), with each state being assigned its own ordinal fitness value. Where a landscape is orderly, the fitness of a particular state can be determined with a relatively compact formula. For such landscapes, general expertise with respect to the underlying formula should be of great value. At the other extreme, where a landscape is maximally complex--sometimes referred to as chaotic--knowledge of the fitness of a particular state tells you nothing about any other state on the landscape. On such landscapes, trial and error will likely be as good as any other strategy in finding high fitness states. In between the ordered and the chaotic, the rugged landscape exhibits characteristics that are less extreme. While fitness values on such a landscape do not appear to be random, neither can they be modeled with a simple formula. On such landscapes, it is proposed that homophilic agents may prove particularly successful at searching for high fitness. The goal of the current paper is to report the results of a simulation intended to test the proposition that the benefits of homophily grow with the underlying ruggedness of the landscape. To simulate underlying landscape, the NK landscape model developed by evolutionary biologist Stuart Kauffman (1993) is used. This model was selected for two reasons: 1) it is widely used in many fields, including business, and 2) it provides a parameter (K) that allows complexity to be tuned. For purposes of comparison, an alternative cluster model of ruggedness is also tested. To simulate different agent types, algorithms defining the respective behaviors were implemented in program code. The paper begins with a brief review of the literature relating to homophily and diffusion, intended to motivate and clarify the research questions being asked. The components of the model used in the simulation are then described; appendices providing a more detailed description of the landscapes employed and the software developed for the simulation appear at the end of the paper. The results of the simulation and accompanying sensitivity analyses are then presented, followed by a discussion of their significance. …

[1]  Peter A. Bamberger,et al.  Diversity and Homophily at Work: Supportive Relations Among White and African-American Peers , 2004 .

[2]  T. Mann The Black Swan , 1954 .

[3]  R. Fabes,et al.  Exposure to Externalizing Peers in Early Childhood: Homophily and Peer Contagion Processes , 2005, Journal of abnormal child psychology.

[4]  T. Grandon Gill,et al.  Illusions of Significance in a Rugged Landscape , 2008, Informing Sci. Int. J. an Emerg. Transdiscipl..

[5]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  ORIGINS OF ORDER , 2019, Origins of Order.

[6]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Landscape Design: Designing for Local Action in Complex Worlds , 1999 .

[7]  Richard A. L. Jones The production of knowledge. , 2008, Nature nanotechnology.

[8]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age , 2003 .

[9]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[10]  M. Morris,et al.  Do People Mix at Mixers? Structure, Homophily, and the “Life of the Party” , 2007 .

[11]  W. Mitchell,et al.  Structural homophily or social asymmetry? The formation of alliances by poorly embedded firms , 2009 .

[12]  P. Dent Animal Spirits – How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why it Matters for Global Capitalism , 2010 .

[13]  J. Shanteau Competence in experts: The role of task characteristics , 1992 .

[14]  Munmun De Choudhury,et al.  "Birds of a Feather": Does User Homophily Impact Information Diffusion in Social Media? , 2010, ArXiv.

[15]  M. Porter,et al.  Contextuality Within Activity Systems and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage , 2008 .

[16]  Jennifer Neville,et al.  Randomization tests for distinguishing social influence and homophily effects , 2010, WWW '10.

[17]  G. A. Marcoulides,et al.  A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling , 2000 .

[18]  I. N. A. C. I. J. H. Fowler Book Review: Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. , 2009 .

[19]  Susan K. Walker Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives , 2011 .

[20]  T. Grandon Gill,et al.  A Tale of Three Classes: Case Studies in Course Complexity , 2010, J. Inf. Technol. Educ..

[21]  Anol Bhattacherjee Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices , 2012 .

[22]  Jan W. Rivkin Imitation of Complex Strategies , 2000 .

[23]  Matthew O. Jackson,et al.  How Homophily Affects Diffusion and Learning in Networks , 2008 .

[24]  Matt Ridley,et al.  The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves , 2010 .

[25]  Judith S. Donath,et al.  Homophily in online dating: when do you like someone like yourself? , 2005, CHI Extended Abstracts.

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

[27]  Walter Kraemer,et al.  The Cult of Statistical Significance , 2010 .

[28]  T. Grandon Gill,et al.  A Psychologically Plausible Goal-Based Utility Function , 2008, Informing Sci. Int. J. an Emerg. Transdiscipl..

[29]  M. Mew A black swan? , 2009, BDJ.

[30]  D. Watts,et al.  Origins of Homophily in an Evolving Social Network1 , 2009, American Journal of Sociology.

[31]  John D. Sterman,et al.  All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist† , 2002 .

[32]  Yoann Bazin,et al.  From Higher Aims to Hired Hands , 2010 .

[33]  Y. Connie Yuan,et al.  Homophily of Network Ties and Bonding and Bridging Social Capital in Computer-Mediated Distributed Teams , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[34]  E. A. Locke Goal-setting theory and its applications to the world of business. , 2004 .

[35]  Arun Sundararajan,et al.  Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[36]  B. Weitz Hosted By , 2003 .

[37]  Daniel A. Levinthal Adaptation on rugged landscapes , 1997 .

[38]  William F. Murphy,et al.  Task Complexity and Design Science , 2011 .

[39]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[40]  Marc Spaniol,et al.  Informing Science : the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline , 2005 .

[41]  Kenneth G. Brown,et al.  The Very Separate Worlds Of Academic And Practitioner Periodicals In Human Resource Management: Implications For Evidence-Based Management , 2007 .

[42]  Matthew O. Jackson,et al.  Network Structure and the Speed of Learning: Measuring Homophily Based on its Consequences , 2011 .

[43]  K. Frenken A fitness landscape approach to technological complexity, modularity, and vertical disintegration , 2006 .

[44]  Lee Altenberg,et al.  Genome Growth and the Evolution of the Genotype-Phenotype Map , 1995, Evolution and Biocomputation.

[45]  E. Rogers Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[46]  K. Hofman,et al.  Implementation Science , 2007, Science.

[47]  W. Polonsky,et al.  The Tipping Point , 2007, The Diabetes educator.

[48]  William B. Mesa Made to Stick , 2008 .

[49]  David P. Barash,et al.  Economics as an evolutionary science : from utility to fitness , 2002 .

[50]  P. Schmidt,et al.  Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. , 1984 .

[51]  S. Kauffman At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity , 1995 .

[52]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  A Modest Proposal: How We might change the Process and Product of Managerial Research , 2007 .

[53]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  Complexity, Networks and Knowledge Flow , 2002 .

[54]  Jan W. Rivkin Reproducing Knowledge: Replication Without Imitation at Moderate Complexity , 2001 .

[55]  T. Grandon Gill,et al.  Informing Science : the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline Volume 14 , 2011 When What is Useful is Not Necessarily True : The Underappreciated Conceptual Scheme , 2011 .

[56]  Daniel T. Willingham,et al.  Why Don't Students Like School? , 2012 .

[57]  T Raykov,et al.  A first course in structural equation modeling, 2nd ed. , 2006 .

[58]  Anol Bhattacherjee,et al.  Whom are we informing? issues and recommendations for MIS research from an informing sciences perspective 1 , 2009 .