↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Cooperation, clustering, and assortative mixing in dynamic networks

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
23 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
Title
Cooperation, clustering, and assortative mixing in dynamic networks
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, January 2018
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1715357115
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Melamed, Ashley Harrell, Brent Simpson

Abstract

Humans' propensity to cooperate is driven by our embeddedness in social networks. A key mechanism through which networks promote cooperation is clustering. Within clusters, conditional cooperators are insulated from exploitation by noncooperators, allowing them to reap the benefits of cooperation. Dynamic networks, where ties can be shed and new ties formed, allow for the endogenous emergence of clusters of cooperators. Although past work suggests that either reputation processes or network dynamics can increase clustering and cooperation, existing work on network dynamics conflates reputations and dynamics. Here we report results from a large-scale experiment (total n = 2,675) that embedded participants in clustered or random networks that were static or dynamic, with varying levels of reputational information. Results show that initial network clustering predicts cooperation in static networks, but not in dynamic ones. Further, our experiment shows that while reputations are important for partner choice, cooperation levels are driven purely by dynamics. Supplemental conditions confirmed this lack of a reputation effect. Importantly, we find that when participants make individual choices to cooperate or defect with each partner, as opposed to a single decision that applies to all partners (as is standard in the literature on cooperation in networks), cooperation rates in static networks are as high as cooperation rates in dynamic networks. This finding highlights the importance of structured relations for sustained cooperation, and shows how giving experimental participants more realistic choices has important consequences for whether dynamic networks promote higher levels of cooperation than static networks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 20%
Student > Master 15 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 28 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 13 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 10%
Psychology 9 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 5%
Other 30 27%
Unknown 37 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 April 2023.
All research outputs
#577,464
of 25,809,966 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#9,987
of 103,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,419
of 455,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#214
of 976 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,809,966 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 103,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 455,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 976 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.