Trust levels in social networks.
Dunbar's number
Evolutionary biology
Neocortex
Power-law distribution
Power-law exponent
Social networks
Trust
Uniform distribution
Journal
Heliyon
ISSN: 2405-8440
Titre abrégé: Heliyon
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101672560
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2023
Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
17
04
2023
revised:
29
08
2023
accepted:
04
09
2023
medline:
9
10
2023
pubmed:
9
10
2023
entrez:
9
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Dunbar's number is the cognitive limit of an individual to maintain stable relationships with others in his network. It is based on the size of the neocortex of the human brain. On the other hand, trust is one of the major issues for one while selecting members for his social network and the evolution of his social network with time. Trust and Dunbar's number are interconnected in the case of one's stable social network. Trust needs time to be built after several social interactions, intimacy, etc. In this paper, we try to provide answers to the following important questions related to social networks: (i) Do trust levels remain the same for individuals from one's perspective in his social network when the network size increases? (ii) What is the relation between the power-law exponent α and the trust cutoff? (iii) Do trust levels help to diffuse information quickly or vice versa to reach Dunbar's number 150 along with hierarchy layers of 5, 15, and 50 individuals in networks of different sizes? We find that there is a requirement for trust levels to increase among the same individuals in one's social network if the size of the network increases. As a relation between the power-law exponent α and the trust cutoff, it is found that
Identifiants
pubmed: 37809809
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19850
pii: S2405-8440(23)07058-5
pmc: PMC10559249
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e19850Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Psychol Sci. 2009 May;20(5):634-44
pubmed: 19476593
Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Nov 7;270(1530):2279-83
pubmed: 14613615
Hum Nat. 2003 Mar;14(1):53-72
pubmed: 26189988
Proc Biol Sci. 2014 Sep 7;281(1790):
pubmed: 25056625
Nature. 1998 Jun 11;393(6685):573-7
pubmed: 9634232
Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Jan;22(1):32-51
pubmed: 29273112
Psychol Sci. 2009 Sep;20(9):1153-60
pubmed: 19674386
PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e22656
pubmed: 21826200
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985 Apr;48(4):909-24
pubmed: 3989674
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 03;10(6):e0126470
pubmed: 26039072
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996 May;70(5):979-95
pubmed: 8656340
Psychol Bull. 1995 May;117(3):497-529
pubmed: 7777651
Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Feb 22;272(1561):439-44
pubmed: 15734699
Nature. 2005 Oct 27;437(7063):1291-8
pubmed: 16251955
Proc Math Phys Eng Sci. 2020 Aug;476(2240):20200446
pubmed: 32922160
Phys Rev Lett. 2003 Feb 7;90(5):058701
pubmed: 12633404
J Econ Behav Organ. 2013 Sep 1;93:
pubmed: 24273360
Br J Psychol. 2012 May;103(2):149-68
pubmed: 22506741
Science. 1999 Oct 15;286(5439):509-12
pubmed: 10521342
PLoS One. 2011 Apr 29;6(4):e19465
pubmed: 21559381
Sci Rep. 2013;3:1783
pubmed: 23648793