Which friends are more popular than you?: Contact strength and the friendship paradox in social networks

ABSTRACT

The friendship paradox states that in a social network, egos tend to have lower degree than their alters, or, "your friends have more friends than you do". Most research has focused on the friendship paradox and its implications for information transmission, but treating the network as static and unweighted. Yet, people can dedicate only a finite fraction of their attention budget to each social interaction: a high-degree individual may have less time to dedicate to individual social links, forcing them to modulate the quantities of contact made to their different social ties. Here we study the friendship paradox in the context of differing contact volumes between egos and alters, finding a connection between contact volume and the strength of the friendship paradox. The most frequently contacted alters exhibit a less pronounced friendship paradox compared with the ego, whereas less-frequently contacted alters are more likely to be high degree and give rise to the paradox. We argue therefore for a more nuanced version of the friendship paradox: "your closest friends have slightly more friends than you do", and in certain networks even: "your best friend has no more friends than you do". We demonstrate that this relationship is robust, holding in both a social media and a mobile phone dataset. These results have implications for information transfer and influence in social networks, which we explore using a simple dynamical model.

References

1. S. L. Feld, "Why your friends have more friends than you do," American Journal of Sociology, pp. 1464--1477, 1991.
2. S. L. Feld and B. Grofman, "Variation in class size, the class size paradox, and some consequences for students," Research in Higher Education, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 215--222, 1977.
3. D. Hemenway, "Why your classes are larger than "average"," Mathematics Magazine, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 162--164, 1982.
4. M. Granovetter, "The Strength of Weak Ties," The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 78, no. 6, pp. 1360--1380, 1973.
5. R. I. Dunbar, "Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans," Behav. brain sci., vol. 16, no. 04, pp. 681--694, 1993.
6. H. Kwak, C. Lee, H. Park, and S. Moon, "What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?" in Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. ACM, 2010, pp. 591--600.
7. N. O. Hodas, F. Kooti, and K. Lerman, "Friendship paradox redux: Your friends are more interesting than you," in Proc. 7th International AAAI Conference On Weblogs And Social Media (ICWSM), 2013.
8. N. B. Ellison, C. Steinfield, and C. Lampe, "The benefits of Facebook friends: social capital and college students use of online social network sites," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1143--1168, 2007.
9. J. Ugander, B. Karrer, L. Backstrom, and C. Marlow, "The anatomy of the Facebook social graph," arXiv preprint arXiv:1111.4503, 2011.
10. J.-P. Onnela, J. Saramäki, J. Hyvönen, G. Szabó, D. Lazer, K. Kaski, J. Kertész, and A.-L. Barabási, "Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 104, no. 18, p. 7332, 2007.
11. J. P. Bagrow, D. Wang, and A.-L. Barabási, "Collective response of human populations to large-scale emergencies," PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 3, p. e17680, 2011.
12. L. Gao, C. Song, Z. Gao, A.-L. Barabási, J. P. Bagrow, and D. Wang, "Quantifying information flow during emergencies," Scientific Reports, vol. 4, p. 3997, 2014.
13. T. V. Pollet, S. G. Roberts, and R. I. Dunbar, "Extraverts have larger social network layers," Journal of Individual Differences, 2011.
14. E. W. Zuckerman and J. T. Jost, "What makes you think you're so popular? Self-evaluation maintenance and the subjective side of the" friendship paradox"," Social Psychology Quarterly, pp. 207--223, 2001.
15. N. O. Hodas and K. Lerman, "How visibility and divided attention constrain social contagion," in Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), 2012 International Conference on and 2012 International Confernece on Social Computing (SocialCom). IEEE, 2012, pp. 249--257.
16. M. C. Gonzalez, C. A. Hidalgo, and A.-L. Barabasi, "Understanding individual human mobility patterns," Nature, vol. 453, no. 7196, pp. 779--782, 2008.
17. C. Song, Z. Qu, N. Blumm, and A.-L. Barabási, "Limits of predictability in human mobility," Science, vol. 327, no. 5968, pp. 1018--1021, 2010.
18. J. P. Bagrow and Y.-R. Lin, "Mesoscopic structure and social aspects of human mobility," PloS one, vol. 7, no. 5, p. e37676, 2012.
19. G. K. Zipf, Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. Addison-Wesley, 1949.
20. M. R. Frank, L. Mitchell, P. S. Dodds, and C. M. Danforth, "Happiness and the patterns of life: A study of geolocated tweets," Scientific Reports, vol. 3, no. 2625, 2013.
21. M. Molloy and B. Reed, "A critical point for random graphs with a given degree sequence," Random structures & algorithms, vol. 6, no. 2--3, pp. 161--180, 1995.
22. M. Molloy and B. Reed, "The size of the giant component of a random graph with a given degree sequence," Combinatorics, probability and computing, vol. 7, no. 03, pp. 295--305, 1998.
23. D. A. Schult and P. Swart, "Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX," in Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conferences (SciPy 2008), vol. 2008, 2008, pp. 11--16.
24. R. M. Anderson and R. M. May, Infectious diseases of humans: dynamics and control. Wiley Online Library, 1992, vol. 28.
25. M. E. J. Newman, Networks: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
26. Y.-H. Eom and H.-H. Jo, "Generalized friendship paradox in complex networks: The case of scientific collaboration," Scientific Reports, vol. 4, p. 4603, 2014.
27. N. A. Christakis and J. H. Fowler, "Social network sensors for early detection of contagious outbreaks," PLOS ONE, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 1--8, 09 2010.
28. M. Garcia-Herranz, E. Moro, M. Cebrian, N. A. Christakis, and J. H. Fowler, "Using friends as sensors to detect global-scale contagious outbreaks," PLOS ONE, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1--7, 04 2014.
29. M. Karsai, M. Kivelä, R. Pan, K. Kaski, J. Kertész, A.-L. Barabási, and J. Saramäki, "Small but slow world: How network topology and burstiness slow down spreading," Physical Review E, vol. 83, no. 2, p. 025102, 2011.
30. D. Mocanu, L. Rossi, Q. Zhang, M. Karsai, and W. Quattrociocchi, "Collective attention in the age of (mis)information," Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 51, pp. 1198--1204, 2015.
31. J. Borge-Holthoefer, N. Perra, B. Gonçalves, S. González-Bailón, A. Arenas, Y. Moreno, and A. Vespignani, "The dynamics of information-driven coordination phenomena: A transfer entropy analysis," Science Advances, vol. 2, no. 4, 2016.
32. M. Karsai, K. Kaski, and J. Kertsz, "Correlated dynamics in egocentric communication networks," PLOS ONE, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 1--9, 07 2012.
33. R. Cohen, S. Havlin, and D. ben-Avraham, "Efficient immunization strategies for computer networks and populations," Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 91, p. 247901, Dec 2003.
34. M. Garcia-Herranz, E. Moro, M. Cebrian, N. A. Christakis, and J. H. Fowler, "Using friends as sensors to detect global-scale contagious outbreaks," PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 4, p. e92413, 2014.

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • Interaction paradigms

• Information systems

  • Information systems applications