Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do¶
Feld, S. L. (1991). Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do. American Journal of Sociology, 96(6), 1464-1477.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Inspection Paradox
- In demography and social networks, the friendship paradox — your friends have more friends than you, on average — is the inspection paradox on a graph's degree distribution, as is the class-size paradox and the inflation of reported partner counts.
This sourceStates and explains the friendship paradox as length-biased sampling on a graph's degree distribution, with expected friend degree ⟨k²⟩/⟨k⟩.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Feld's abstract establishes the friendship paradox numerically and links it to 'class size paradoxes', but says nothing of degree distributions, the inspection paradox, or partner counts.
“This disproportionate experiencing of friends with many friends is related to a set of abstractly similar "class size paradoxes" that includes such diverse phenomena as the tendencies for college students to experience the mean class size as larger than it actually is”
- In demography and social networks, the friendship paradox — your friends have more friends than you, on average — is the inspection paradox on a graph's degree distribution, as is the class-size paradox and the inflation of reported partner counts.
Domain-specific¶
- Friendship Paradox
- The friendship paradox is the observation, established by Scott Feld in 1991
This sourceFeld's analysis of Coleman's Adolescent Society friendship data showing a genuine gap between the mean number of friends and the mean number of friends-of-friends.
SupportedVerified against the publisher's abstract
“the mean number of friends of friends is always greater than the mean number of friends of individuals”
- The friendship paradox is the observation, established by Scott Feld in 1991
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 1 supported, 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:14d443ca6134 · see in the full table