ArticleScientific reports2023
The enmity paradox.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social network structure and depression by gender in rural Honduras: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- The structure and function of antagonistic ties in village social networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Induction of social contagion for diverse outcomes in structured experiments in isolated villages.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The "friendship paradox" of social networks states that, on average, "your friends have more friends than you do". Here, we theoretically and empirically explore a related and overlooked paradox we refer to as the "enmity paradox". We use empirical data from 24,678 people living in 176 villages in rural Honduras. We empirically show that, for a real negative undirected network (created by symmetrizing antagonistic interactions), the paradox exists as it does in the positive world. Specifically, a person's enemies have more enemies, on average, than a person does. Furthermore, in a mixed world of positive and negative ties, we study the conditions for the existence of the paradox, which we refer to as the "mixed-world paradox", both theoretically and empirically, finding that, for instance, a person's friends typically have more enemies than a person does. We also confirm the "generalized" enmity paradox for non-topological attributes in real data, analogous to the generalized friendship paradox (e.g., the claim that a person's enemies are richer, on average, than a person is). As a consequence, the naturally occurring variance in the degree distribution of both friendship and antagonism in social networks can skew people's perceptions of the social world.
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.