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.
The key observation of the friendship paradox is that, because highly popular individuals are over-represented across the sets of alters of egos, the average degree of alters is right-skewed, leading to the colloquial your friends have more friends than you'' @cite_14 . Perceptions can be biased because of the paradox @cite_25 and and personality traits which correlate with network degree, such as extroversion @cite_23 will be influenced by the paradox.
@cite_14 @cite_25 @cite_23
1959141096 2084862036 1971930416 2064303302
Feld's friendship paradox states that "your friends have more friends than you, on average." This paradox arises because extremely popular people, despite being rare, are overrepresented when averaging over friends. Using a sample of the Twitter firehose, we confirm that the friendship paradox holds for >98 of Twitter users. Because of the directed nature of the follower graph on Twitter, we are further able to confirm more detailed forms of the friendship paradox: everyone you follow or who follows you has more friends and followers than you. This is likely caused by a correlation we demonstrate between Twitter activity, number of friends, and number of followers. In addition, we discover two new paradoxes: the virality paradox that states "your friends receive more viral content than you, on average," and the activity paradox, which states "your friends are more active than you, on average." The latter paradox is important in regulating online communication. It may result in users having difficulty maintaining optimal incoming information rates, because following additional users causes the volume of incoming tweets to increase super-linearly. While users may compensate for increased information flow by increasing their own activity, users become information overloaded when they receive more information than they are able or willing to process. We compare the average size of cascades that are sent and received by overloaded and underloaded users. And we show that overloaded users post and receive larger cascades and they are poor detector of small cascades. It is reasonable to suppose that individuals use the number of friends that their friends have as one basis for determining whether they, themselves, have an adequate number of friends. This article shows that, if individuals compare themselves with their friends, it is likely that most of them will feel relatively inadequate. Data on friendship drawn from James Coleman's (1961) classic study The Adolescent Society are used to illustrate the phenomenon that most people have fewer friends than their friends have. The logic underlying the phenomenon is mathematically explored, showing that the mean number of friends of friends is always greater than the mean number of friends of individuals. Further analysis shows that the proportion of individuals who have fewer friends than the mean number of friends their own friends have is affected by the exact arrangement of friendships in a social network. This disproportionate experiencing of friends with many friends is related to a set of We report on a survey of undergraduates at the University of Chicago in which respondents were asked to assess their popularity relative to others. Popularity estimates were related to actual popularity, but we also found strong evidence of self-enhancement in self-other comparisons of popularity. In particular, self-enhancement was stronger for self versus friend comparisons than for self versus typical other comparisons; this is contrary to the reality demonstrated in Feld's friendship paradox and suggests that people are more threatened by the success of friends than of strangers. At the same time, people with relatively popular friends tended to make more self-serving estimates of their own popularity than did people with less popular friends. These results clarify how objective patterns of interpersonal contact work together with cognitive and motivational tendencies to shape perceptions of one's location in the social world. Abstract : INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG RATINGS ON 35 PERSONALITY TRAITS, SELECTED AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERSONALITY DOMAIN, WERE OBTAINED FOR EIGHT SAMPLES. These samples differed in length of acquaintanceship from three days to more than a year; in kind of acquaintanceship from assessment programs in a military training course to a fraternity house situation; in type of subject from airmen with only a high school education to male and female undergraduate students to firstyear graduate students; and in type of rater from very naive persons to clinical psychologists and psychiatrists with years of experience in the evaluation of personality. Centroid or multiplegroup factors were extracted and rotated orthogonally to simple structure. For one study, an independent solution was obtained in which analytic rotations were accomplished on an IBM 650 computer using Kaiser's normal varimax criterion. Five fairly strong and recurrent factors emerged from each analysis, labeled as (1) Surgency, (2) Agreeableness, (3) Dependability, (4) Emotional Stability, and (5) Culture.