↓ Skip to main content

How women organize social networks different from men

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, February 2013
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
173 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
How women organize social networks different from men
Published in
Scientific Reports, February 2013
DOI 10.1038/srep01214
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Szell, Stefan Thurner, Szell M, Thurner S

Abstract

Superpositions of social networks, such as communication, friendship, or trade networks, are called multiplex networks, forming the structural backbone of human societies. Novel datasets now allow quantification and exploration of multiplex networks. Here we study gender-specific differences of a multiplex network from a complete behavioral dataset of an online-game society of about 300,000 players. On the individual level females perform better economically and are less risk-taking than males. Males reciprocate friendship requests from females faster than vice versa and hesitate to reciprocate hostile actions of females. On the network level females have more communication partners, who are less connected than partners of males. We find a strong homophily effect for females and higher clustering coefficients of females in trade and attack networks. Cooperative links between males are under-represented, reflecting competition for resources among males. These results confirm quantitatively that females and males manage their social networks in substantially different ways.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 173 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 5%
United Kingdom 4 3%
Japan 4 3%
Germany 3 3%
France 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
Belgium 2 2%
Netherlands 2 2%
Switzerland 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 84 72%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 26%
Researcher 25 21%
Student > Master 22 19%
Other 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 22 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 21 18%
Social Sciences 18 15%
Physics and Astronomy 17 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 12 10%
Engineering 9 8%
Other 40 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 170. 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 11 February 2017.
All research outputs
#46,844
of 8,599,369 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#634
of 39,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,453
of 301,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#5
of 494 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,599,369 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 39,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 301,265 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 494 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.