Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:02:02.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supple networks: Preferential attachment by diversity in nascent social graphs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2014

JAMESON K. M. WATTS Open the ORCID record for JAMESON K. M. WATTS [Opens in a new window]  and
KENNETH W. KOPUT
JAMESON K. M. WATTS
Affiliation:
Eller College of Management, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA (email: jamesonw@email.arizona.edu)
KENNETH W. KOPUT
Affiliation:
Eller College of Management, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA (email: jamesonw@email.arizona.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A preference for diversity has been identified as an important predictor of tie formation in certain networks, both social and organizational, that also exhibit a high degree of suppleness–the ability to retain their general form and character under stress (Durkheim, 1893/1997. The division of labor in society; Powell et al., 1996. Administrative Science Quarterly 116–145; Powell et al., 2005. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 1132–1205; Koput & Gutek, 2010. Gender stratification in the IT industry: Sex, status and social capital. Edward Elgar Publishing). Extant models of preferential attachment, based on popularity, similarity, and cohesion, meanwhile, produce exceedingly brittle networks (Albert et al., 2000. Nature, 406(6794), 378–382; Callaway et al., 2000. Physical Review Letters, 85(25), 5468–5471; Holme et al., 2002. Physical Review E, 65(2), 026107; Shore et al., 2013 Social Networks, 35(1), 116–123). A model of preferential attachment based on diversity is introduced and simulated, demonstrating that a preference for diversity can create a structure characterized by suppleness. This occurs because a preference for diversity promotes overlapping and redundant weak ties during the early stages of network formation.

Keywords

social networkscomplex networksdiversityresiliencepreferential attachment
Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , December 2014 , pp. 303 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabási, A.-L. (2000). Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature, 406 (6794), 378–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 604–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. (1993). The social organization of conspiracy: Illegal networks in the heavy electrical equipment industry. American Sociological Review, 58, 837–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabási, A. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286 (5439), 509–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bishop, M., Carvalho, M., Ford, R., & Mayron, L. M. (2011). Resilience is more than availability. Proceedings of the 2011 Workshop on New Security Paradigms Workshop, ACM, 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. Free Press New York.Google Scholar
Boland, W. A., Brucks, M., & Nielsen, J. H. (2012). The attribute carryover effect: What the “runner-up” option tells us about consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 872–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boone, C., Witteloostuijn, A. V., & Carroll, G. R. (2002). Resource distributions and market partitioning: Dutch daily newspapers, 1968 to 1994. American Sociological Review, 67, 408–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgatti, S. P. (2006). Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 12 (1), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, D. S., Newman, M. E. J., Strogatz, S. H., & Watts, D. J. (2000). Network robustness and fragility: Percolation on random graphs. Physical Review Letters, 85 (25), 5468–5471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, G. R., & Swaminathan, A. (2000). Why the microbrewery movement? organizational dynamics of resource partitioning in the us brewing industry. American Journal of Sociology, 106 (3), 715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. J. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review, 51 (4), 661–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comte, A. (1852). Cour de philosophie positive volume 1, Borrani et Droz.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1893/1997). The division of labor in society. Simon and Schuster (Original work published 1893).Google Scholar
Erdős, P., & Rényi, A. (1960). On the evolution of random graphs. Magyar Tud.Akad.Mat.Kutató Int.Közl, 5, 17–61.Google Scholar
Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52 (3), 443–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, J. P., & Martin, W. T. (1962). Urbanization, technology, and the division of labor: International patterns. American Sociological Review, 27, 667–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girvan, M., & Newman, M. E. J. (2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99 (12), 7821–7826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haveman, H. A. (1992). Between a rock and a hard place: Organizational change and performance under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 48–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haveman, H. A., Russo, M. V., & Meyer, A. D. (2001). Organizational environments in flux: The impact of regulatory punctuations on organizational domains, ceo succession, and performance. Organization Science, 12 (3), 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herfindahl, O. C. (1950). Concentration in the Steel Industry. (Doctoral dissertation). Columbia University.Google Scholar
Holme, P. (2002). Edge overload breakdown in evolving networks. Physical Review E, 66 (3), 036119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holme, P. & Kim, B J. (2002). Growing scale-free networks with tunable clustering. Physical Review E, 65 (2), 026107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holme, P., Kim, B. J., Yoon, C. N., & Han, S. K. (2002). Attack vulnerability of complex networks. Physical Review E, 65 (5), 056109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. The American Economic Review, 86, 562–583.Google Scholar
Koput, K. W., & Gutek, B. A. (2010). Gender stratification in the IT industry: Sex, status and social capital. Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krackhardt, D. (1994). Graph theoretical dimensions of informal organizations. Computational Organization Theory, 89 (112), 123–140.Google Scholar
Loch, C. H., & Huberman, B. A. (1999). A punctuated-equilibrium model of technology diffusion. Management Science, 45 (2), 160–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, (Special Issue: Organizational Learning: Papers in Honor of (and by) March, James G.), 2 (1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onnela, J.-P., Saramäki, J., Hyvönen, J., Szabó, G., Lazer, D., Kaski, K., . . . Barabási, A.-L. (2007). Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (18), 7332–7336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owen-Smith, J., Buhr, H., & Funk, R. J. (2014). Network portfolios and the authenticity premium: Market value across five high-technology sectors. Working paper. (Unpublished manuscript). University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Pachucki, M. A., & Breiger, R. L. (2010). Cultural holes: Beyond relationality in social networks and culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W. & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., Smith-Doerr, L., & Owen-Smith, J. (1999). Network position and firm performance: Organizational returns to collaboration in the biotechnology industry. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 16 (1), 129–159.Google Scholar
Powell, W. W., White, D. R., Koput, K. W. & Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences1. American Journal of Sociology, 110 (4), 1132–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shemtov, R. (2003). Social networks and sustained activism in local nimby campaigns. Sociological Forum, 18 (2) 215–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shore, J., Chu, C. J., & Bianchi, M. T. (2013). Power laws and fragility in flow networks. Social Networks, 35 (1), 116–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Organizations and social structure. Handbook of organizations, 44 (2), 142–193.Google Scholar
Taylor, V. (1989). Social movement continuity: The women's movement in abeyance. American Sociological Review, 54, 761–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tellis, G. J. (1988). Advertising exposure, loyalty, and brand purchase: A two-stage model of choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (2), 134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiwana, A. (2008). Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (3), 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393 (6684), 440–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimmer, A., & Lewis, K. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily: Erg models of a friendship network documented on facebook1. American Journal of Sociology, 116 (2), 583–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar