Social Network Analysis and Mining

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 163–167

Facebook as a Small World: a topological hypothesis

  • Barbara Caci
  • Maurizio Cardaci
  • Marco E. Tabacchi
Original Article

Abstract

Facebook is becoming a pervasive entity as its social, cultural and media ramifications grow deep and entrenched in our daily life. Its nature of a complex system of interactions, bearing a strong similarity to networks built through individual choices and systems shaped by evolutionary pressure, makes it an interesting target for research. Scale-free Small World networks, recently popularized by Barabasi, are a topological class pertaining to both these domains, whose members have resilience to disruption and short intermediate connections between nodes. In this paper we show that the topological structure of a specific subset of Facebook, gathered using data from a self-report online questionnaire on its usage, is similar but measurably different from a scale-free Small World network. We conjecture that the reason for this counterintuitive result lies in the dynamics behind friendship requests. This concept may be extendable to the whole network and to other social networks, and is useful to understand Facebook strengths and weaknesses, and to forecast its evolution.

Keywords

Social networks Facebook Web 2.0 Small World networks 

References

  1. Albert R, Barabasi AL (2002) Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev Mod Phys 74(47):47–97MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barabasi AL (2001) The physics of the web, Physics Web, The IoP WebpageGoogle Scholar
  3. Barabasi AL (2002) Linked: the new science of networks. Perseus, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhattacharyya P, Garg A, Wu S (2011) Analysis of user keyword similarity in online social networks. Soc Netw Anal Mining (1):143–158. doi:10.1007/s13278-010-0006-4
  5. Blackmore S (2001) Evolution and memes: the human brain as a selective imitation device. Cybern Syst 32:225–255MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bollobas B (2001) Random graphs. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyd DM, Ellison NB (2008) Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. J Comput Mediat Commun 13:210–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chatfield C (1983) Statistics for technology. Chapman and HallGoogle Scholar
  9. Cucchiarelli A, D’Antonio F, Velardi P (2011) Semantically interconnected social networks. Soc Netw Anal Mining 1–27. doi:10.1007/s13278-011-0030-z
  10. Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Donath J, Boyd D (2004) Public displays of connection. BT Tech J 2(4):71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dwyer C, Hiltz S, Passerini K (2007) Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: a comparison of Facebook and MySpace. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth Americas conference on information systems, Keystone, Colorado August 09–12Google Scholar
  13. Ellison N, Heino R, Gibbs J (2006) Managing impressions online: self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. J Comp Med Comm 11(2):415–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feng F, Lianghuan L, Long W (2008) Empirical analysis of online social networks in the age of Web 2.0. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 387(2–3):675–684Google Scholar
  15. Golder SA, Wilkinson D, Huberman BA (2007) Rhythms of social interaction: messaging within a massive online network. In: Proceedings of the Third international conference on communities and technologies. Springer, London, pp 41–66Google Scholar
  16. Hargittai E (2007) Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites. Comp Med Comm 13(1):article 14Google Scholar
  17. Joinson AN (2008) Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people? Motives and use of Facebook. In: Proceedings of CHI ’08. ACM, New York, pp 1027–1036Google Scholar
  18. Koslow S, Hyman S (2000) Human brain project: a program for the new millennium, Einstein Quarterly. J Biol. Med 17:7–15Google Scholar
  19. Lampe C, Ellison NB, Steinfield C (2006) A Face(book) in the crowd: social searching vs. social browsing. In: Proceedings of CSCW’06. ACM, New York, pp 167–170Google Scholar
  20. Lenhart A, Madden M (2007) Teens, privacy and online social networks: how teens manage their online identities and personal information in the age of MySpace. Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/211/report_display.asp. Accessed July 7, 2011
  21. Lyon B (2003) The opte project. http://www.opte.org
  22. Petrou M, Piroddi R, Tabacchi ME (2010) Networks of concepts and ideas. Comput J 53(10):1738–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scott J. (2011) Social network analysis: developments, advances, and prospects Soc Netw Anal Mining 1:21–26. doi:10.1007/s13278-010-0012-6
  24. Tufekci Z (2008) Grooming, gossip, Facebook and MySpace: what can we learn about these sites from those who won’t assimilate? Inf. Comm. Soc. 11(4):544–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small world’ networks. Nature 393:440–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhang W, Wu W, Wang F, Xu K (2011) Positive influence dominating sets in power-law graphs. Social Netw Anal Mining 1–7. doi:10.1007/s13278-011-0033-9

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Caci
    • 1
  • Maurizio Cardaci
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marco E. Tabacchi
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Dipartimento di PsicologiaUniversità degli Studi di PalermoPalermoItaly
  2. 2.Centro Interdipartimentale Tecnologie della ConoscenzaUniversità degli Studi di PalermoPalermoItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Matematica ed InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di PalermoPalermoItaly
  4. 4.Istituto Nazionale di Ricerche DemopolisTrapaniItaly

Personalised recommendations