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
2084862036 1971930416 2111761833
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. Previous studies showed that extraversion influences social network size. However, it is unclear how extraversion affects the size of different layers of the network, and how extraversion relates to the emotional intensity of social relationships. We examined the relationships between extraversion, network size, and emotional closeness for 117 individuals. The results demonstrated that extraverts had larger networks at every layer (support clique, sympathy group, outer layer). The results were robust and were not attributable to potential confounds such as sex, though they were modest in size (raw correlations between extraversion and size of network layer, .20 < r < .23). However, extraverts were not emotionally closer to individuals in their network, even after controlling for network size. These results highlight the importance of considering not just social network size in relation to personality, but also the quality of relationships with network members.