» Articles » PMID: 25056625

Effects of Deception in Social Networks

Overview
Journal Proc Biol Sci
Specialty Biology
Date 2014 Jul 25
PMID 25056625
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Honesty plays a crucial role in any situation where organisms exchange information or resources. Dishonesty can thus be expected to have damaging effects on social coherence if agents cannot trust the information or goods they receive. However, a distinction is often drawn between prosocial lies ('white' lies) and antisocial lying (i.e. deception for personal gain), with the former being considered much less destructive than the latter. We use an agent-based model to show that antisocial lying causes social networks to become increasingly fragmented. Antisocial dishonesty thus places strong constraints on the size and cohesion of social communities, providing a major hurdle that organisms have to overcome (e.g. by evolving counter-deception strategies) in order to evolve large, socially cohesive communities. In contrast, white lies can prove to be beneficial in smoothing the flow of interactions and facilitating a larger, more integrated network. Our results demonstrate that these group-level effects can arise as emergent properties of interactions at the dyadic level. The balance between prosocial and antisocial lies may set constraints on the structure of social networks, and hence the shape of society as a whole.

Citing Articles

Modelling the creation of friends and foes groups in small real social networks.

Garcia-Rodriguez A, Govezensky T, Naumis G, Barrio R PLoS One. 2024; 19(2):e0298791.

PMID: 38412166 PMC: 10898769. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298791.


Trust levels in social networks.

Acharjee S, Panicker A Heliyon. 2023; 9(9):e19850.

PMID: 37809809 PMC: 10559249. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19850.


Structure and function in human and primate social networks: implications for diffusion, network stability and health.

Dunbar R Proc Math Phys Eng Sci. 2020; 476(2240):20200446.

PMID: 32922160 PMC: 7482201. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2020.0446.


Relating size and functionality in human social networks through complexity.

West B, Massari G, Culbreth G, Failla R, Bologna M, Dunbar R Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020; 117(31):18355-18358.

PMID: 32690712 PMC: 7414177. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2006875117.


Fraud and Understanding the Moral Mind: Need for Implementation of Organizational Characteristics into Behavioral Ethics.

Houdek P Sci Eng Ethics. 2019; 26(2):691-707.

PMID: 31197626 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-019-00117-z.


References
1.
Wang C, Galinsky A, Murnighan J . Bad drives psychological reactions, but good propels behavior: responses to honesty and deception. Psychol Sci. 2009; 20(5):634-44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02344.x. View

2.
Roberts G, Renwick J . The development of cooperative relationships: an experiment. Proc Biol Sci. 2003; 270(1530):2279-83. PMC: 1691507. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2491. View

3.
Watts D, Strogatz S . Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks. Nature. 1998; 393(6684):440-2. DOI: 10.1038/30918. View

4.
Lachmann M, Szamado S, Bergstrom C . Cost and conflict in animal signals and human language. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001; 98(23):13189-94. PMC: 60846. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.231216498. View

5.
Rosas A . Evolutionary game theory meets social science: is there a unifying rule for human cooperation?. J Theor Biol. 2010; 264(2):450-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.02.015. View