Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 284

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Diffusion of Behavior and Equilibrium Properties in Network Games

Jackson, Matthew O, Yariv, Leeat·2007·American Economic Review

Abstract

Situations in which agents’ choices depend on choices of those in close proximity, be it social or geographic, are ubiquitous. Selecting a new computer platform, signing a political petition, or even catching the flu are examples in which social interactions have a significant role. While some behaviors or states propagate and explode within the population (e.g., Windows OS, the HIV virus) others do not (e.g., certain computer viruses). Our goal in this paper is twofold. First, we provide a general dynamic model in which agents’ choices depend on the underlying social network of connections. Second, we show the usefulness of the model in determining when a given behavior expands within a population or disappears as a function of the environment’s fundamentals. \n \nWe study a framework in which agents face a choice between two actions, 0 and 1 (e.g., whether to pursue a certain level of education, switch to Linux OS, etc.). Agents are linked through a social network, and an agent’s payoffs from each action depend on the number of neighbors she has and her neighbors’ choices. The diffusion process is defined so that at each period, each agent best responds to the actions taken by her neighbors in the previous period, assuming that her neighbors follow the population distribution of actions (a mean-field approximation). Steady states correspond to equilibria of the static game. Under some simple conditions, equilibria take one of two forms. Some are stable, so that a slight perturbation to any such equilibrium would lead the diffusion process to converge back to that equilibrium point. Other equilibria are unstable, so that a slight change in the distribution of actions leads to a new distribution of actions and eventually to a stable steady state. We call such equilibria tipping points. We analyze how the environment’s fundamentals (cost distribution, payoffs, and network structure) affect the set of equilibria, and characterize the adoption patterns within the network. \n \nThe paper relates to recent work on network games and network diffusion, including work by Stephen Morris (2000); Pastor-Satorras and Vespignani (2000); Mark E. J. Newman (2002); Dunia López-Pintado (2004); Jackson and Brian W. Rogers (2007); Jackson and Yariv (2005); and Andrea Galeotti et al. (2005, henceforth GGJVY). Its contribution is in characterizing diffusion of strategic behavior and analyzing the stability properties of equilibria, and employing methods that allow us to make comparisons across general network structures and settings. Given that social networks differ substantially and systematically in structure across settings (e.g., ethnic groups, professions, etc.), understanding the implications of social structure on diffusion is an important undertaking for a diverse set of applications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1257/aer.97.2.92

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Jackson, M. O., & Yariv, L.
Venue
American Economic Review
Published
2007-04-01
Volume
97
Issue
2
Pages
92-98
ISSN
0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2132038800
Cited by
284
References
0
FWCI
17.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.