Quality versus quantity of social ties in experimental cooperative networks

被引:0
|
作者
Hirokazu Shirado
Feng Fu
James H. Fowler
Nicholas A. Christakis
机构
[1] Corporate R&D,Department of Health Care Policy
[2] Sony Corporation,Division of Medical Genetics
[3] Shinagawa,Department of Political Science
[4] Harvard Medical School,Department of Medicine
[5] Program for Evolutionary Dynamics,Department of Sociology
[6] Harvard University,undefined
[7] University of California-San Diego,undefined
[8] University of California-San Diego,undefined
[9] Yale University,undefined
[10] Yale University,undefined
[11] Yale Institute of Network Science,undefined
[12] Yale University,undefined
[13] PO Box 208263,undefined
[14] New Haven,undefined
[15] Connecticut 06520,undefined
[16] USA,undefined
[17] Present address: Theoretical Biology Group,undefined
[18] Institute of Integrative Biology,undefined
[19] ETH Zurich,undefined
[20] Zurich,undefined
[21] 8092,undefined
[22] Switzerland,undefined
来源
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Recent studies suggest that allowing individuals to choose their partners can help to maintain cooperation in human social networks; this behaviour can supplement behavioural reciprocity, whereby humans are influenced to cooperate by peer pressure. However, it is unknown how the rate of forming and breaking social ties affects our capacity to cooperate. Here we use a series of online experiments involving 1,529 unique participants embedded in 90 experimental networks, to show that there is a ‘Goldilocks’ effect of network dynamism on cooperation. When the rate of change in social ties is too low, subjects choose to have many ties, even if they attach to defectors. When the rate is too high, cooperators cannot detach from defectors as much as defectors re-attach and, hence, subjects resort to behavioural reciprocity and switch their behaviour to defection. Optimal levels of cooperation are achieved at intermediate levels of change in social ties.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] QUANTITY VERSUS QUALITY - IS STRESS THE LINK
    不详
    [J]. FAMILY PRACTICE, 1985, 2 (03) : 125 - 126
  • [22] AGRICULTURAL CROPS - QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY
    BELL, GDH
    [J]. NATURE, 1954, 173 (4396) : 198 - 200
  • [23] Quantity versus quality of hand hygiene
    van den Broek, PJ
    Verbakel-Salomons, EMA
    Bernards, AT
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION, 2001, 49 (04) : 297 - 298
  • [24] FLUORIDE AND BONE - QUANTITY VERSUS QUALITY
    LINDSAY, R
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1990, 322 (12): : 845 - 846
  • [25] Quality versus quantity in scientific impact
    Kaur, Jasleen
    Ferrara, Emilio
    Menczer, Filippo
    Flammini, Alessandro
    Radicchi, Filippo
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 2015, 9 (04) : 800 - 808
  • [26] QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY IN THE ACADEMICS' EVALUATION
    Moraru, Gina-Maria
    Popescu, Liliana Georgeta
    [J]. INTED2017: 11TH INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE, 2017, : 1777 - 1783
  • [27] Quantity versus quality: the sperm war
    Xiao, Shan
    Xia, Laixin
    [J]. ASIAN JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY, 2016, 18 (06) : 900 - 901
  • [28] Classifying chemoreceptors: quantity versus quality
    Underbakke, Eric S.
    Kiessling, Laura L.
    [J]. EMBO JOURNAL, 2010, 29 (20): : 3435 - 3436
  • [29] QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY IN ARMS RACES
    HIRAO, Y
    [J]. SOUTHERN ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 1994, 61 (01) : 96 - 103
  • [30] A Therapeutic Dilemma: Quality versus Quantity
    Kucuk, H. Olgun
    Kucuk, U.
    Balta, S.
    Demirkol, S.
    [J]. CARDIOLOGY, 2013, 126 (02) : 96 - 96