It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Technologically enabled sharing-economy networks are changing the way humans trade and collaborate. Here, using a novel ‘Wi-Fi sharing’ game, we explored determinants of human sharing strategy. Subjects (N = 1,950) participated in a networked game in which they could choose how to allocate a limited, but personally not usable, resource (representing unused Wi-Fi bandwidth) to immediate network neighbors. We first embedded N = 600 subjects into 30 networks, experimentally manipulating the range over which subjects could connect. We find that denser networks decrease any wealth inequality, but that this effect saturates. Individuals’ benefit is shaped by their network position, with having many partners who in turn have few partners being especially beneficial. We propose a new, simplified “sharing centrality” metric for quantifying this. Further experiments (N = 1,200) confirm the robustness of the effect of network structure on sharing behavior. Our findings suggest the possibility of interventions to help more evenly distribute shared resources over networks.
Resource sharing over peer-to-peer technological networks is emerging as economically important, yet little is known about how people choose to share in this context. Here, the authors introduce a new game to model sharing, and test how players form sharing strategies depending on technological constraints.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Yale University, Yale Institute for Network Science, New Haven, USA (GRID:grid.47100.32) (ISNI:0000000419368710); Yale University, Department of Sociology, New Haven, USA (GRID:grid.47100.32) (ISNI:0000000419368710)
2 Trinity College Dublin, School of Computer Science and Statistics, Dublin, Ireland (GRID:grid.8217.c) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9705); SFI Research Centre CONNECT, Dublin, Ireland (GRID:grid.437854.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 0452 5752)
3 Yale University, Yale Institute for Network Science, New Haven, USA (GRID:grid.47100.32) (ISNI:0000000419368710); Yale University, Department of Electrical Engineering, New Haven, USA (GRID:grid.47100.32) (ISNI:0000000419368710)
4 Yale University, Yale Institute for Network Science, New Haven, USA (GRID:grid.47100.32) (ISNI:0000000419368710); Yale University, Department of Sociology, New Haven, USA (GRID:grid.47100.32) (ISNI:0000000419368710); Yale University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, New Haven, USA (GRID:grid.47100.32) (ISNI:0000000419368710)