Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3485447.3511931acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

What Does Perception Bias on Social Networks Tell Us About Friend Count Satisfaction?

Published: 25 April 2022 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Social network platforms have enabled large-scale measurement of user-to-user networks such as friendships. Less studied is user sentiment about their networks, such as a user’s satisfaction with their number of friends. We surveyed over 85,000 Facebook users about how satisfied they were with their number of friends on Facebook, connecting these responses to their on-platform activity. As suggested in prior work, we’d expect users who are not satisfied with their friend count to have a higher probability of experiencing the friendship paradox: “your friends have more friends than you”. However in our sample, among users with more than  3,500 friends, no user experiences the friendship paradox. Instead, we still observe that those users with more friends would prefer to have even more friends. The friendship paradox also contributes to local perception bias, defined as the difference between the average number of friends among a user’s friends and the average friend count in the population. Users with a positive perception bias – their friends have more friends than others – are less satisfied with their friend count. We then introduce a weighted perception bias metric that considers the fact that different friends have different effects on an individual’s perception. We find this new weighted perception bias better distinguishes friend count satisfaction outcomes for users with high friend count when compared to the original perception bias metric. We conclude with modeling the behavior interactions via a machine learning model, demonstrating the heterogeneity in the interactions across users with different perception biases. Altogether, these findings offer more insights on users’ friend count satisfaction, which may provide guidelines to improve the user experience and promote healthy interactions.

    References

    [1]
    Nazanin Alipourfard, Buddhika Nettasinghe, Andrés Abeliuk, Vikram Krishnamurthy, and Kristina Lerman. 2020. Friendship paradox biases perceptions in directed networks. Nature Communications 11, 1 (2020), 1–9.
    [2]
    Johan Bollen, Bruno Gonçalves, Ingrid van de Leemput, and Guangchen Ruan. 2017. The happiness paradox: your friends are happier than you. EPJ Data Science 6(2017), 1–10.
    [3]
    Moira Burke and Robert E Kraut. 2016. The relationship between Facebook use and well-being depends on communication type and tie strength. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21, 4 (2016), 265–281.
    [4]
    Mieke Decuyper, Marleen De Bolle, and Filip De Fruyt. 2012. Personality similarity, perceptual accuracy, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Personal Relationships 19, 1 (2012), 128–145.
    [5]
    Robin IM Dunbar. 1992. Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution 22, 6 (1992), 469–493.
    [6]
    Economist. 2009. Primates on Facebook: Even Online, the Neocortex Is the Limit. (2009).
    [7]
    Young-Ho Eom and Hang-Hyun Jo. 2014. Generalized friendship paradox in complex networks: The case of scientific collaboration. Scientific Reports 4, 1 (2014), 1–6.
    [8]
    Scott L Feld. 1991. Why your friends have more friends than you do. Amer. J. Sociology 96, 6 (1991), 1464–1477.
    [9]
    Mark S Granovetter. 1973. The strength of weak ties. Amer. J. Sociology 78, 6 (1973), 1360–1380.
    [10]
    Christopher A Hafen, Brett Laursen, William J Burk, Margaret Kerr, and Håkan Stattin. 2011. Homophily in stable and unstable adolescent friendships: Similarity breeds constancy. Personality and Individual Differences 51, 5 (2011), 607–612.
    [11]
    Joseph Henrich and Francisco J Gil-White. 2001. The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 22, 3 (2001), 165–196.
    [12]
    Nathan O Hodas, Farshad Kooti, and Kristina Lerman. 2013. Friendship paradox redux: Your friends are more interesting than you. In Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
    [13]
    Matthew O Jackson. 2019. The friendship paradox and systematic biases in perceptions and social norms. Journal of Political Economy 127, 2 (2019), 777–818.
    [14]
    Farshad Kooti, Nathan O Hodas, and Kristina Lerman. 2014. Network weirdness: Exploring the origins of network paradoxes. In Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
    [15]
    Eun Lee, Fariba Karimi, Claudia Wagner, Hang-Hyun Jo, Markus Strohmaier, and Mirta Galesic. 2019. Homophily and minority-group size explain perception biases in social networks. Nature Human Behaviour 3, 10 (2019), 1078–1087.
    [16]
    Adam Lerer, Ledell Wu, Jiajun Shen, Timothee Lacroix, Luca Wehrstedt, Abhijit Bose, and Alex Peysakhovich. 2019. Pytorch-biggraph: A large-scale graph embedding system. arXiv:1903.12287 (2019).
    [17]
    Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 4768–4777.
    [18]
    Julian J McAuley and Jure Leskovec. 2012. Learning to discover social circles in ego networks. In NeurIPS, Vol. 2012. Citeseer, 548–56.
    [19]
    Seth A Myers, Aneesh Sharma, Pankaj Gupta, and Jimmy Lin. 2014. Information network or social network? The structure of the Twitter follow graph. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web. 493–498.
    [20]
    Robin L Nabi, Abby Prestin, and Jiyeon So. 2013. Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 16, 10(2013), 721–727.
    [21]
    Mark C Pachucki, Emily J Ozer, Alain Barrat, and Ciro Cattuto. 2015. Mental health and social networks in early adolescence: A dynamic study of objectively-measured social interaction behaviors. Social Science & Medicine 125 (2015), 40–50.
    [22]
    Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazan and David Valle-Cruz. 2020. Sentiment Analysis of Facebook Users Reacting to Political Campaign Posts. Digit. Gov.: Res. Pract. 1, 2, Article 12 (April 2020), 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3382735
    [23]
    Johan Ugander, Brian Karrer, Lars Backstrom, and Cameron Marlow. 2011. The anatomy of the Facebook social graph. arXiv: 1111.4503 (2011).
    [24]
    Bimal Viswanath, Alan Mislove, Meeyoung Cha, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2009. On the evolution of user interaction in Facebook. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on Online social networks. 37–42.
    [25]
    Stanley Wasserman and Joseph Galaskiewicz. 1994. Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Sage.
    [26]
    Christo Wilson, Bryce Boe, Alessandra Sala, Krishna PN Puttaswamy, and Ben Y Zhao. 2009. User interactions in social networks and their implications. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems. 205–218.
    [27]
    Robert E Wilson, Samuel D Gosling, and Lindsay T Graham. 2012. A review of Facebook research in the social sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, 3 (2012), 203–220.
    [28]
    Xin-Zeng Wu, Allon G Percus, and Kristina Lerman. 2017. Neighbor-neighbor correlations explain measurement bias in networks. Scientific Reports 7, 1 (2017), 1–7.
    [29]
    Justine Zhang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Christina Sauper, and Sean J Taylor. 2018. Characterizing online public discussions through patterns of participant interactions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW(2018), 1–27.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Profile update: the effects of identity disclosure on network connections and languageEPJ Data Science10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00483-013:1Online publication date: 28-Jun-2024
    • (2024)Unpacking the exploration–exploitation tradeoff on SnapchatComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2023.108014150:COnline publication date: 1-Feb-2024

    Index Terms

    1. What Does Perception Bias on Social Networks Tell Us About Friend Count Satisfaction?
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Conferences
        WWW '22: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022
        April 2022
        3764 pages
        ISBN:9781450390965
        DOI:10.1145/3485447
        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial International 4.0 License.

        Sponsors

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 25 April 2022

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. Friend count satisfaction
        2. Friendship paradox
        3. Perception bias

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Conference

        WWW '22
        Sponsor:
        WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022
        April 25 - 29, 2022
        Virtual Event, Lyon, France

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)49
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
        Reflects downloads up to 27 Jul 2024

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2024)Profile update: the effects of identity disclosure on network connections and languageEPJ Data Science10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00483-013:1Online publication date: 28-Jun-2024
        • (2024)Unpacking the exploration–exploitation tradeoff on SnapchatComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2023.108014150:COnline publication date: 1-Feb-2024

        View Options

        Get Access

        Login options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format.

        HTML Format

        Media

        Figures

        Other

        Tables

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media