↓ Skip to main content

Effect of direct reciprocity and network structure on continuing prosperity of social networking services

Overview of attention for article published in Computational Social Networks, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Effect of direct reciprocity and network structure on continuing prosperity of social networking services
Published in
Computational Social Networks, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40649-017-0038-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kengo Osaka, Fujio Toriumi, Toshihauru Sugawara

Abstract

Social networking services (SNSs) are widely used as communicative tools for a variety of purposes. SNSs rely on the users' individual activities associated with some cost and effort, and thus it is not known why users voluntarily continue to participate in SNSs. Because the structures of SNSs are similar to that of the public goods (PG) game, some studies have focused on why voluntary activities emerge as an optimal strategy by modifying the PG game. However, their models do not include direct reciprocity between users, even though reciprocity is a key mechanism that evolves and sustains cooperation in human society. We developed an abstract SNS model called the reciprocity rewards and meta-rewards games that include direct reciprocity by extending the existing models. Then, we investigated how direct reciprocity in an SNS facilitates cooperation that corresponds to participation in SNS by posting articles and comments and how the structure of the networks of users exerts an influence on the strategies of users using the reciprocity rewards game. We run reciprocity rewards games on various complex networks and an instance network of Facebook and found that two types of stable cooperation emerged. First, reciprocity slightly improves the rate of cooperation in complete graphs but the improvement is insignificant because of the instability of cooperation. However, this instability can be avoided by making two assumptions: high degree of fun, i.e. articles are read with high probability, and different attitudes to reciprocal and non-reciprocal agents. We then propose the concept of half free riders to explain what strategy sustains cooperation-dominant situations. Second, we indicate that a certain WS network structure affects users' optimal strategy and facilitates stable cooperation without any extra assumptions. We give a detailed analysis of the different characteristics of the two types of cooperation-dominant situations and the effect of the memory of reciprocal agents on cooperation.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 30%
Student > Master 2 20%
Student > Postgraduate 1 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Unknown 3 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 2 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%
Computer Science 1 10%
Psychology 1 10%
Social Sciences 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Unknown 3 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 17 August 2017.
All research outputs
#3,284,904
of 13,648,199 outputs
Outputs from Computational Social Networks
#7
of 40 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,853
of 266,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Computational Social Networks
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,648,199 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 40 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one scored the same or higher as 33 of them.
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 266,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them