ArticleScientific reports2016
Evolutionary Dynamics of Homophily and Heterophily.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Echo Chambers and Homophily in the Diffusion of Risk Information on Social Media: The Case of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Cooperation and group similarity in children and young adults in the UK.Evolutionary human sciences · 2023Article
- Homophily, heterophily and the diversity of messages among decision-making individuals.Royal Society open science · 2018Article
- Convergence and divergence in gesture repertoires as an adaptive mechanism for social bonding in primates.Royal Society open science · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most social interactions do not take place at random. In many situations, individuals choose their interaction partners on the basis of phenotypic cues. When this happens, individuals are often homophilic, that is, they tend to interact with individuals that are similar to them. Here we investigate the joint evolution of phenotypic cues and cue-dependent interaction strategies. By a combination of individual-based simulations and analytical arguments, we show that homophily evolves less easily than earlier studies suggest. The evolutionary interplay of cues and cue-based behaviour is intricate and has many interesting facets. For example, an interaction strategy like heterophily may stably persist in the population even if it is selected against in association with any particular cue. Homophily persisted for extensive periods of time just in those simulations where homophilic interactions provide a lower (rather than a higher) payoff than heterophilic interactions. Our results indicate that even the simplest cue-based social interactions can have rich dynamics and a surprising diversity of evolutionary outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.