Modifying Trust Dynamics through Cooperation and Defection in Evolving Social Networks
We present a model of social network that shows a dynamic emergent behavior simulating actors that exchange knowledge based on their preferences, expertise and friendship relations. The network presents a stochastic interaction behavior that tends to create communities, driven by the assortative mixing and triadic closures. Our first research goal is to investigate the features driving the formation of communities and their characteristics under different configurations of the network. In particular we focus on trust which we analyze qualitatively as dependent on the frequency and pattern of interactions. To this aim, we ran simulations of different network configurations and analyzed the resulting statistics. The second research goal is to study the effects of node deception and cooperation on the social network behavior; our primary metric is trust and we evaluated how, under specific conditions, it is possible to manipulate trust in some non trivial ways.
KeywordsSocial Network Personal State Giant Component Emergent Behavior Original Cluster
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Barber, B.: The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Rutgers University Press (1983)Google Scholar
- 3.Burt, R.S.: Bandwidth and echo: Trust, information, and gossip in social networks. In: Casella, A., Rauch, J.E. (eds.) Networks and Markets: Contributions from Economics and Sociology. Russell Sage Foundation, Thousand Oaks (2001)Google Scholar
- 4.Golbeck, J.: Trust and nuanced profile similarity in online social networks. ACM Trans. Web, 3:12:1–12:33 (September 2009)Google Scholar
- 6.Holme, P., Beom, J.K., Chang, N.Y., Seung, K.H.: Attack vulnerability of complex networks. Physical Review E 65(056109) (2002)Google Scholar
- 9.Newman, M.E.J.: Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 5200–5205 (2004)Google Scholar
- 13.Newman, M.E.J., Park, J.: Why social networks are different from other types of networks. Physical Review E 68(3) (2003)Google Scholar
- 14.Pastor-Satorras, R., Vazquez, A., Vespignani, A.: Dynamical and correlation properties of the internet. Phis. Rev. Lett. 87(258701) (2001)Google Scholar
- 19.Tyler, J.R., Wilkinson, D.M., Huberman, B.A.: Email as spectroscopy: automated discovery of community structure within organizations, pp. 81–96. Kluwer, B.V., The Netherlands (2003)Google Scholar