Network centrality, social loops, and utility maximization

  • Hideki FujiyamaEmail author


This study examines the effect of social loops on individual effort. Under a situation wherein agents’ effort induces additional efforts to others through a network, an optimum effort corresponds to the subgraph centrality that captures the number of social loops in a network. In contrast to Bonacich centrality, this centrality avoids a problem of divergence and it is based on bounded rational behaviors. We tested this theoretical fact using data for 122 Japanese university sophomores and juniors from 2013 to 2018. Bonacich cenrality had a divergence problem in all cases. On the other hand, students who had a higher subgraph centrality index tended to put forth more efforts in a class after controlling for the individual characteristics. Subgraph centrality had a robust effect even if we added an effect of other centralities, i.e., out-degree, in-degree, betweenness, and closeness centralities. This fact shows that the social loop of communication was critical in the class of university students.


Subgraph centrality Micro-foundation of centralities Peer influence University student network 

JEL Classification

D85 I20 D01 



The author thanks Ryuhei Tsuji for advice about a questionnaire, Kayo Fujimoto for advice about estimation methods and Naoko Matsuda for her helpful comments. I also thank the editor and two anonymous referees for helpful comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

As for Conflict of Interest, the author declares that I have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of my institution.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

40844_2019_137_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (83 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 83 kb)


  1. Ahuja MK, Galletta DF, Carley KM (2003) Individual centrality and performance in virtual R and D groups: an empirical study. Manag Sci 49(1):21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballester C, Calvó-Armengol A, Zenou Y (2006) Who’s Who in the network. Wanted: the key player. Econometrica 74(5):1403–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blume LE, Brock WA, Durlauf SN, Ioannides YM (2011) Identification of social interactions. In: Benhavib J, Bisin A, Jackson MO (eds) Handbook of Social Economics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 853–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonacich P (1987) Power and centrality: a family of measures. Am J Sociol 29(5):1170–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bramoullé Y, Kranton R (2007) Public goods in networks. J Econ Theory 135(1):478–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butts CT (2006) Cycle Census statistics for exponential random graph models. Accessed 8 March 2019
  7. Calvó-Armengol A, Patacchini E, Zenou Y (2009) Peer effects and social networks in education. Rev Econ Stud 76(4):1239–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cattani G, Ferriani S (2008) A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: social networks and cinematic achievements in the hollywood film industry. Organ Sci 19(6):824–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cross R, Cummings JN (2004) Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Acad Manag J 47(6):928–937Google Scholar
  10. Estrada E, Rodríguez-Velázquez JA (2005) Subgraph centrality in complex networks. Phys Rev E 71(5):56103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fujimoto M, Daibo I (2007) ENDCORE: a hierarchical structure theory of communication skills. Jpn J Personal 15(3):347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78(6):1360–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Granovetter MS (1995) Getting a job: a study of contacts and careers, vol 2. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hochberg YV, Ljungqvist A, Lu Y (2007) Whom you know matters: venture capital networks and investment performance. J Financ 62(1):251–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ibarra H, Andrews SB (1993) Power, social influence, and sense making: effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Adm Sci Q 38(2):277–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jackson MO, Rogers B, Zenou Y (2017) The economic consequences of social-network structure. J Econ Lit 55(1):1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Katz L (1953) A new status index derived from sociometric analysis. Psychometrika 18(1):39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu X, Patacchini E, Zenou Y (2014) Endogenous peer effects: local aggregate or local average? J Econ Behav Org 103:39–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Manski CF (1993) Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev Econ Stud 60(3):531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oshio A, Nakaya M, Kaneko H et al (2002) Development and validation of an adolescent resilience scale. Jpn J Couns Sci 35:57–65Google Scholar
  21. Pan W (2001) Akaike’s information criterion in generalized estimating equations. Biometrics 57(1):120–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Patacchini E, Rainone E, Zenou Y (2017) Heterogeneous peer effects in education. J Econ Behav Org 134:190–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Podolny JM (1993) A status-based model of market competition. Am J Sociol 98(4):829–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shimamoto K, Ishii M (2006) Development of a daily life skills scale for college students. Jpn J Educ Psychol 54:211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Snijders TAB (2005) Models for Longitudinal Network Data. In: Carrington PJ, Scott J, Wsserman S (eds) Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 215–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Snijders TAB, Pattison P, Robins GL, Handcock MS (2006) New specifications for exponential random graph models. Sociol Methodol 36(1):99–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Snijders TAB, van de Bunt GG, Steglich CEG (2010) Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Netw 32(1):44–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steglich CEG, Snijders TAB, Pearson M (2010) Dynamic networks and behavior: separating selection from influence. Sociol Methodol 40(1):329–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Uzzi B (1996) The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect. Am Sociol Rev 61(4):674–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van de Bunt GG, van Duijn MAJ, Snijders TAB (1999) Friendship networks through time: an actor-oriented dynamic statistical network model. Comput Math Organ Theory 5(2):167–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Duijn MAJ, Zeggelink EPH, Huisman M et al (2003) Evolution of sociology freshmen into a friendship network. J Math Sociol 27(2–3):153–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Association for Evolutionary Economics 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsDokkyo UniversitySoka-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations