4.4 Article

Status, cognitive overload, and incomplete information in advice-seeking networks: An agent-based model

期刊

SOCIAL NETWORKS
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 150-159

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.socnet.2023.09.001

关键词

Advice-seeking; Network formation; Status; Cognitive overload; Stochastic actor-oriented models; Agent-based modeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aims to extend previous research on advice-seeking across organizational boundaries through an agent-based model. By utilizing more realistic assumptions and fitting the simulated network to existing data, the findings demonstrate the advantage of exploring multiple generative paths in analyzing network formation.
Advice-seeking typically occurs across organizational boundaries through informal connections. By using Stochastic Actor-Oriented Models (SAOM), previous research has tried to identify the micro-level mechanisms behind these informal connections. Unfortunately, these models assume perfect network information, require agents to perform too cognitively demanding decisions, and do not account for threshold-based critical events, such as simultaneous tie changes. In the context of knowledge-intensive organizations, the shortage of high skilled professionals could determine complex network effects given that many less-skilled professionals would seek advice from a few easily overloaded, selective high-skilled, who are also sensitive to status demotion. To capture these context-specific organizational features, we have elaborated on SAOM with an agent-based model that assumes local information, status-based tie selection, and simultaneous re-direction of multiple ties. By fitting our simulated networks to Lazega's advice network used in previous research, we reproduced the same set of macro-level network metrics with a parsimonious model based on more empirically plausible assumptions than previous research. Our findings show the advantage of exploring multiple generative paths of network formation with different models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据