Online networks, social interaction and segregation: an evolutionary approach

Regular Article
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

There is growing evidence that face-to-face interaction is declining in many countries, exacerbating the phenomenon of social isolation. On the other hand, social interaction through online networking sites is steeply rising. To analyze these societal dynamics, we have built an evolutionary game model in which agents can choose between three strategies of social participation: 1) interaction via both online social networks and face-to-face encounters; 2) interaction by exclusive means of face-to-face encounters; 3) opting out from both forms of participation in pursuit of social isolation. We illustrate the dynamics of interaction among these three types of agent that the model predicts, in light of the empirical evidence provided by previous literature. We then assess their welfare implications. We show that when online interaction is less gratifying than offline encounters, the dynamics of agents’ rational choices of interaction will lead to the extinction of the sub-population of online networks users, thereby making Facebook and similar platforms disappear in the long run. Furthermore, we show that the higher the propensity for discrimination of those who interact via online social networks and via face-to-face encounters (i.e., their preference for the interaction with agents of their same type), the greater the probability will be that they all will end up choosing social isolation in the long run, making society fall into a “social poverty trap”.

Keywords

Social networks Segregation Dynamics of social interaction Social media Social networking sites 

JEL classification

C73 D85 O33 Z13 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The research of Angelo Antoci and Fabio Sabatini has been funded by Regione Autonoma della Sardegna (Autonomous Region of Sardinia) in the context of the research project “Social capital and growth differentials”. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Antoci A, Sacco PL, Vanin P (2007) Social capital accumulation and the evolution of social participation. J Socio-Econ 36:128–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoci A, Sabatini F, Sodini M (2012) The solaria syndrome: social capital in a hypertechnological growing economy. J Econ Behav Organ 81(3):802–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antoci A, Sabatini F, Sodini M (2015) Online and offline social participation and social poverty traps. J Math Sociol 39(4):229–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antoci A, Delfino A, Paglieri F, Panebianco F, Sabatini F (2016) Civility vs. incivility in online social interactions: an evolutionary approach. PLoS One 11(11):e0164286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartolini S, Sarracino F (2015) The dark side of Chinese growth: declining social capital and well-being in times of economic growth. World Dev 74:333–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauernschuster S, Falck O, Wößmann L (2014) Surfing alone? The internet and social capital: quasi-experimental evidence from an unforeseeable technological mistake. J Public Econ 117:73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bischi GI, Merlone U (2011) An adaptive dynamic model of segregation. In: Pau T, Panchuk A (eds) Nonlinear economic dynamics. Nova Science, Hauppauge, pp 191–205Google Scholar
  8. Bomze I (1983) Lotka-Volterra equations and replicator dynamics: a two-dimensional classification. Biol Cybern 48:201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruni L, Stanca L (2008) Watching alone: relational goods, television and happiness. J Econ Behav Organ 65(3–4):506–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castellacci F, Schwabe H (2017) Internet use and well-being in different domains of life. Paper presented at the conference “ICTs and well-being”, Oslo, pp 4–5Google Scholar
  11. Costa DL, Kahn EM (2003) Understanding the American decline in social capital 1952-1998. Kyklos 56(1):17–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox E (2002) Making the lucky country. In: Putnam RD (ed) Democracies in flux. The evolution of social capital in contemporary society. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, pp 333–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener E (1979) Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. J Pers Soc Psychol 37(7):1160–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DiMaggio P, Hargittai E, Russel Neumann W et al (2001) Social implications of the Internet. Annu Rev Sociol 27:307–336Google Scholar
  15. Duggan M, Ellison NB, Lampe C, Lenhart A, Madden M (2015) Social Media Update 2014. Pew Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellison N, Boyd D (2013) Sociality through social network sites. In: Dutton WH (ed) The Oxford handbook of internet studies. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Falck O, Gold R, Heblich S (2014) E-lections: voting behavior and the internet. Am Econ Rev 104(7):2238–2265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gershuny J (2003) Web-use and Net-nerds: a neo-functionalist analysis of the impact of information technology in the home. Soc Forces 82(1):141–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gui B, Sugden R (2005) Economics and social interaction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heliwell JF, Huang H (2013) Comparing the happiness effects of real and on-line friends. PLoS One 8(9):e72754.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072754 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hirsch F (1976) Social limits to growth. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Hofbauer J (1981) On the occurrence of limit cycles in the Volterra-Lotka equation. Nonlinear Analysis 5:1003–1007Google Scholar
  23. Hofbauer J, Sigmund K (1988) The Theory of Evolution and Dynamical Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Jobvite (2014) Social recruiting survey. Jobvite, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Kiesler S, Siegel J, McGuire TW (1984) Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. Am Psychol 39(10):1123–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kraut R, Patterson M, Lundmark V et al (1998) Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?. Am Psychol 53:1011–1031Google Scholar
  27. Kross E, Verduyn P, Demiralp E, Park J, Lee DS, Lin N, Shablack H, Jonides J, Ybarra O (2013) Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLoS One 8(8):e69841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li Y, Savage M, Pickles A (2003) Social capital and social exclusion in England and Wales (1972–1999). Br J Sociol 54(4):497–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27:415–444Google Scholar
  30. Pénard T, Mayol A (2017) Facebook use and individual well-being: like me to make me happier! Revue D'Èconomie Industrielle 158: 101–127Google Scholar
  31. Putnam RD (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Radi D, Gardini L, Avrutin V (2014a) The role of constraints in a segregation model: the symmetric case. Chaos, Solitons Fractals 66:103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Radi D, Gardini L, Avrutin V (2014b) The role of constraints in a segregation model: the asymmetric case. Discret Dyn Nat Soc, vol 2014, Article ID 569296Google Scholar
  34. Sabatini F, Sarracino F (2014) E-participation: social capital and the internet. FEEM Working Paper 2014.81. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  35. Sabatini F, Sarracino F (2016) Keeping up with the e-Joneses: do online social networks raise social comparisons? MPRA Paper 69201Google Scholar
  36. Sabatini F, Sarracino F (2017) Online networks and subjective well-being. Kyklos 70(3):456–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schelling T (1969) Models of segregation. Am Econ Rev 59:488–493Google Scholar
  38. Schelling T (1971) Dynamic models of segregation. J Math Sociol 1:143–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shu-Chun H, Ching-Yi L, Pei-Chen S (2012) Explore Consumers’ experience in using Facebook through mobile devices. PACIS 2012:173Google Scholar
  40. Siegel J, Dubrowsky W, Kiesler S, McGuire TW (1986) Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 37(2):157–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weibull JW (1995) Evolutionary game theory. Cambridge (Ma): MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and BusinessUniversity of SassariSassariItaly
  2. 2.Department of Economics and LawSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations