Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T01:25:58.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coordination, Communication, and Information: How Network Structure and Knowledge Affect Group Behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2019

Mathew D. McCubbins  and
Nicholas Weller
Mathew D. McCubbins
Affiliation:
Ruth F. De Varney Professor of Political Science and Professor of Law, Department of Political Science and Duke Law School, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
Nicholas Weller*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: nweller@ucr.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Communication is central to solving coordination problems in politics. In this paper, we show that both the communication network and what people know about the network structure affect coordination. Increases in the number of connections between people make coordination easier and so does increasing the amount of information people have about the structure. We also demonstrate that highly connected nodes in the network can facilitate coordination, but only if individuals have sufficient knowledge to identify the presence of these nodes. Our results suggest the importance of understanding network knowledge and its effects on behavior.

Keywords

communicationnetworkscoordinationlaboratory experimentsgroup behavior
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , Spring 2020 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
© The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2019 

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

Bisbee, J. and Larson, J.. 2017. Testing Social Science Theories with Online Network Data: An Evaluation of External Validity. American Political Science Review 111(3): 502–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, D. P., Esterling, K. M. and Lazer, D. M. J.. 2004. Friends, Brokers, and Transitivity: Who Informs Whom in Washington Politics? Journal of Politics 66: 224–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, S., Gale, D., Kariv, S. and Palfrey, T.. 2011. Network Architecture, Salience and Coordination. Games and Economics Behavior 73(1): 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D. 1991. Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D. 1993. Coordinating Demands for Social Change. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528(1): 126–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chwe, M. 1998. Culture, Circles, and Commercials: Publicity, Common Knowledge, and Social Coordination. Rationality and Society 10(1): 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chwe, M. 1999. Structure and Strategy in Collective Action. American Journal of Sociology 105(1): 128–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enemark, D., McCubbins, M. D. and Weller, N.. 2014. Knowledge and Networks: An Experimental Test of How Network Knowledge Affects Coordination. Social Networks 36: 122–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, L.C. 1992. Filling in the Blanks: A Theory of Cognitive Categories and the Structure of Social Affiliation. Social Psychology Quarterly 55(2) 118–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, J., Heaney, M., Nickerson, D., Padgett, J. and Sinclair, B.. 2011. Causality in Political Networks. American Politics Research 39(2): 437–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanneman, R. and Riddle, M.. 2005. Introduction to Social Network Methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside.Google Scholar
Kearns, M., Suri, S. and Montfort, N.. 2006. An Experimental Study of the Coloring Problem on Human Subject Networks. Science 313: 824–827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenney, M. 2007. From Pablo to Osama: Trafficking and Terrorist Networks, Government Bureaucracies, and Competitive Adaptation. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Klar, S. and Shmargad, Y.. 2017. The Effect of Network Structure on Preference Formation. Journal of Politics 79(2): 717–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoke, D. 1990. Political Networks: The Structural Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, G., Masket, S. and Noel, H.. 2009. Partisan Webs: Information Exchange and Party Networks. British Journal of Political Science 39: 633–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krackhardt, D. 1987. Cognitive Social Structures. Social Networks 9: 109–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kranton, R. and Bramoulle, Y.. 2007. Games Played on Networks. In The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Networks, eds. Bramoulle, Y., Gaelotti, A. and Rogers, B.. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, J. 2016. The Evolutionary Advantage of Limited Network Knowledge. Journal of Theoretical Biology 398: 43–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lupia, A. and McCubbins, M. D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. 2011. After Egypt: The Limits and Promise of Online Challenges to the Authoritarian Arab State. Perspectives on Politics 9(2): 301–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, M. D., Paturi, R. and Weller, N.. 2009. Connected Coordination: Network Structure and Group Coordination. American Politics Research 37(5): 899–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, M. D., Rodriguez, D. and Weller, N.. 2013. Cheap, Easy or Connected: The Conditions for Creating Group Coordination. Southern California Law Review 86(3): 495.Google Scholar
McCubbins, M. D. and Weller, N.. 2012. Effects of Network Structure on Costly Coordination. Association for Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Technical Report FS-12-08, Social Networks and Social Contagion, 37–43.Google Scholar
McCubbins, M. and Weller, N.. 2019. Replication Data for: Coordination, Communication, and Information: How Network Structure and Knowledge Affect Group Behavior. Harvard Dataverse, V3. doi: 10.7910/DVN/OR4R9O Google Scholar
Nicoll Victor, J., Montgomery, A. and Lubell, M. (eds.) 2016. The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patty, J. W. and Penn, E. Maggie. 2014. Sequential Decision-Making & Information Aggregation in Small Networks. Political Science Research & Methods 2(2): 243–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, N. and Victor, J. Nicoll. 2013. Bridging the Information Gap: Legislative Member Organizations in the United States and European Union, with Christopher J. Carman. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, D. 2009. Social Networks and Collective Action. American Journal of Political Science 53(1): 122–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, B., Markovsky, B. and Steketee, M.. 2011. Power and the Perception of Social Networks. Social Networks 33(2): 166–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, B. 2012. The Social Citizen: Peer Networks and Political Behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suri, S. and Watts, D. J.. 2011. Cooperation and Contagion in Web-Based, Networked Public Goods Experiments. PLoS ONE 6(3): e16836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tam Cho, W. K. and Fowler, J. H.. 2010. Legislative Success in a Small World: Social Network Analysis and the Dynamics of Congressional Legislation. Journal of Politics 72(1): 125–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

McCubbins and Weller Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OR4R9O
Link
Supplementary material: File

McCubbins and Weller supplementary material

McCubbins and Weller supplementary material 1

Download McCubbins and Weller supplementary material(File)
File 39.1 KB