Mathematical model shows how groups split into factions

January 4, 2011 By Bill Steele
As changes in individual relationships spread through a group, eventually a split evolves.

( -- The school dance committee is split; one group wants an "Alice in Wonderland" theme; the other insists on "Vampire Jamboree." Mathematics could have predicted it.

Social scientists have long argued that when under stress, social networks either end up all agreeing or splitting into two opposing factions. Either condition is referred to as "structural balance."

New Cornell research has generated a of how this evolves. Previous mathematical approaches to structural balance have proven that when conditions are right, the result of group conflict will be a split into just two groups, the researchers said. The new work shows for the first time the steps through which friendships and rivalries shift over time and who ends up on each side.

Watch the animation.

"Structural balance theory applies in situations where there's a lot of -- gossip disparaging to one person, countries feeling pressure, companies competing -- where we need to make alliances and find our friends and enemies," said Cornell Ph.D. candidate Seth Marvel, lead author of a paper explaining the research published during the week of Jan. 3, 2011, in the online edition of the with co-authors Jon Kleinberg, the Tisch University Professor of Computer Science, Robert Kleinberg, assistant professor of computer science, and Steven Strogatz, the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor of Applied Mathematics.

People may form alliances based on shared values, or may consider the social consequences of allying with a particular person, Marvel said. "The model shows that the latter is sufficient to divide a group into two factions," he said.

The model is a simple applied to a matrix, or grid of numbers, that can represent relationships between people, nations or corporations. The researchers tested their model on a classic sociological study of a karate club that split into two groups and got results that matched what happened in real life. They plugged in data on international relations prior to World War II and got almost perfect predictions on how the Axis and Allied alliances formed.

The smallest unit in such a network is a "relationship triangle," between, say, Bob and Carol and Ted, which can have four states:

  • They're all good friends. That's a stable or "balanced" situation.

  • Bob and Carol are friends, but neither gets along with Ted. That's also balanced.

  • Bob and Carol dislike each other, but both are friends with Ted. Ted will try to get Bob and Carol together; he will either succeed or end up alienating one or both of his friends, so the situation is unbalanced and has a tendency to change.

  • All three dislike each other. Various pairs will try to form alliances against the third, so this situation is also unbalanced.
"Every choice has consequences for other triangles," Strogatz explained, so unbalanced triangles kick off changes that propagate through the entire system. Too often the final state consists of two groups, each with all positive connections among themselves and all negative connections with members of the opposite group.

How social groups split into factions
Social groups can be broken down to "relationship triangles" with four possibilities: A) A, B and C are mutual friends: balanced. B) A is friends with B and C, but they don't get along with each other: not balanced. C) A and B are friends with C as a mutual enemy: balanced. D) A, B, and C are mutual enemies: not balanced. Unbalanced triangles set off changes that spread through the group. From "Networks" by Jon Kleinberg and David Easley

Is there a way to avoid the mathematical certainty of a split, perhaps to make Republicans and Democrats in Congress less polarized? It depends on the initial conditions, Marvel said. The model shows that if the "mean friendliness" -- the average strength of connections across the entire network is positive, the system evolves to a single, all-positive pattern. "The model shows how to influence the result, but it doesn't tell you how to get there," Kleinberg cautioned.

Marvel plans to test the model on other social networks, and perhaps work with psychologists to do lab experiments with human subjects. But he too cautions against leaning too heavily on the equations for practical advice. "This is a simple model and deterministic, and people aren't deterministic," he said.

The research was supported in part by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Google, the Yahoo! Research Alliance, a Microsoft Research New Faculty Fellowship, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Science Foundation.

Explore further: Physics Model Determines Dynamics of Friends and Enemies

Related Stories

Physics Model Determines Dynamics of Friends and Enemies

December 2, 2009

( -- Sometimes friends can become enemies and enemies become friends, and it’s difficult to understand exactly how or why the changes took place. A new study shows that when the shifting of alliances and rivalries ...

Understanding the social butterfly effect

December 2, 2010

( -- A team of scientists from the University of Southampton, in collaboration with Royal Holloway, University of London and the Institute of Zoology at London Zoo, have been researching the social butterfly effect ...

Tracking the digital traces of social networks

February 14, 2009

Why do we create and maintain social networks? Most people can immediately think of a few natural reasons -- we get something from the interaction, or the person is nearby and is close to us in proximity, age or gender.

Recommended for you

New paper answers causation conundrum

November 17, 2017

In a new paper published in a special issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, SFI Professor Jessica Flack offers a practical answer to one of the most significant, and most confused questions in evolutionary ...

Chance discovery of forgotten 1960s 'preprint' experiment

November 16, 2017

For years, scientists have complained that it can take months or even years for a scientific discovery to be published, because of the slowness of peer review. To cut through this problem, researchers in physics and mathematics ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2011
That is actually pretty interesting and visible in everyday life, the result, in hindsight that is. This really gets into a subject from one of my favorite podcasts, Radiolab, on choice, which questions whether we are actually choosing anything.
4 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2011
That is actually pretty interesting and visible in everyday life, the result, in hindsight that is. This really gets into a subject from one of my favorite podcasts, Radiolab, on choice, which questions whether we are actually choosing anything.

I read that book "The Illusion of Conscious Will" that they referred to in the radiolab podcast (it was really good, and although the subject is difficult, the book was surprisingly easy to read and entertaining). The very next book I read was Taleb's Black Swan. I've come to a realization that what we call 'random' is really chaos. It's very possible nothing in our universe is random. We're just a big machine of equal and opposite reactions... and this probably includes human behavior. I also came to realize how little I know and how little the world knows.
5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2011
Uh, IIRC, this math explains why juries are a dozen, and why big committees, to get *anything* done, split into working parties...
3 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2011
Uh, IIRC, this math explains why juries are a dozen, and why big committees, to get *anything* done, split into working parties...

Which reminds me of a saying I heard 50 years ago:
"That must be the answer - God is a committee"


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.