IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_12905.html

The Friendship Paradox: Causal Evidence of Its Behavioral Consequences

Author

Listed:
  • Gary Charness
  • Francesco Feri
  • Matthew Jackson
  • Miguel Melendez-Jimenez
  • Matthias Sutter

Abstract

We provide a first causal analysis of the behavioral consequences of the friendship paradox—the fact that people’s friends in a network have more connections than average. We find that people’s behavior is biased by their network position: they do not best respond to what they should infer the average behavior of the population to be, but instead simply to the average behavior of their friends. Moreover, we find that they fail to learn to overcome such a bias when relocated within the network, varying their observational environment. In these games of complements, the friendship paradox generates a systematic upward distortion in actions, increases behavioral dispersion, and persists despite learning opportunities.

Suggested Citation

  • Gary Charness & Francesco Feri & Matthew Jackson & Miguel Melendez-Jimenez & Matthias Sutter, 2026. "The Friendship Paradox: Causal Evidence of Its Behavioral Consequences," CESifo Working Paper Series 12905, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_12905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp12905.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary Charness & Francesco Feri & Miguel A. Meléndez‐Jiménez & Matthias Sutter, 2014. "Experimental Games on Networks: Underpinnings of Behavior and Equilibrium Selection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(5), pages 1615-1670, September.
    2. Gary Charness & Uri Gneezy, 2010. "Portfolio Choice And Risk Attitudes: An Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(1), pages 133-146, January.
    3. Matthew O. Jackson, 2019. "The Friendship Paradox and Systematic Biases in Perceptions and Social Norms," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(2), pages 777-818.
    4. Thomson, Keela S. & Oppenheimer, Daniel M., 2016. "Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 99-113, January.
    5. Promit K. Chaudhuri & Matthew O. Jackson & Sudipta Sarangi & Hector Tzavellas, 2023. "Network Beliefs and Behavior with Peer Effects," Papers 2305.03124, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2026.
    6. Andreas Bjerre-Nielsen & Martin Benedikt Busch, 2022. "Statistical inference in social networks: how sampling bias and uncertainty shape decisions," Papers 2205.13046, arXiv.org.
    7. Benjamin Enke & Florian Zimmermann, 2019. "Correlation Neglect in Belief Formation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 313-332.
    8. Keela S. Thomson & Daniel M. Oppenheimer, 2016. "Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 99-113, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bao, Leo & Gangadharan, Lata & Leister, C. Matthew, 2025. "Deterrence in networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 501-517.
    2. Banerjee, Ritwik & Gupta, Nabanita Datta & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2020. "Feedback spillovers across tasks, self-confidence and competitiveness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 127-170.
    3. Cabrales, Antonio & Feri, Francesco & Gottardi, Piero & Meléndez-Jiménez, Miguel A., 2020. "Can there be a market for cheap-talk information? An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 368-381.
    4. Vieira, José Geraldo Vidal & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2026. "A survey-based priority elicitation protocol for community-based resource allocation decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 328(3), pages 925-937.
    5. Belhaj, Mohamed & Deroïan, Frédéric, 2021. "The value of network information: Assortative mixing makes the difference," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 428-442.
    6. Sergio Currarini & Francesco Feri & Bjoern Hartig & Miguel A. Meléndez-Jiménez, "undated". "To Share or Not to Share: An Experiment on Information Transmission in Networks," Discussion Papers in Economics 20/08, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    7. Marco Faravelli & Benedict Gordon & Joshua Huisman & Vera L. te Velde, 2026. "What drives voter turnout? Experimental insights on collectivism and probability weighting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 100(2), pages 427-449, March.
    8. Fossen, Frank M. & Neyse, Levent & Schröder, Carsten, 2025. "Does Cognitive Reflection Relate to Preferences and Socioeconomic Outcomes?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 3(2), pages 303-343.
    9. Brandts, Jordi & Busom, Isabel & Lopez-Mayan, Cristina, 2025. "Do giving voice and social information help in revising a misconception about rent–control?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    10. Estache, Antonio & Foucart, Renaud & Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2025. "Delegating decisions to a lottery can reduce preference for control," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 257(C).
    11. Mariken van der Velden & Felicia Loecherbach, 2021. "Epistemic Overconfidence in Algorithmic News Selection," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 182-197.
    12. Deng, Zihao & Deng, Zhaohua, 2025. "Becoming a cognitive miser? Antecedents and consequences of addictive ChatGPT use," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 383(C).
    13. Wichers, Hendrika Geesje, 2023. "Targeted intervention using network characteristics: An experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    14. Marek Muszyński & Natalia Banasik-Jemielniak & Tomasz Żółtak & Kaili Rimfeld & Nicholas G. Shakeshaft & Kerry L. Schofield & Margherita Malanchini & Artur Pokropek, 2026. "Moving intelligence measurement online: adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the Pathfinder general cognitive ability test," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 329-354, February.
    15. Zhang, Si-Qi & Li, Ming-Hui & Li, Yu-Chu & Rao, Li-Lin, 2025. "Effects of childhood environments on the discernment of health misinformation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 380(C).
    16. Sipos, Norbert & Lukovszki, Lívia & Rideg, András & Vörös, Zsófia, 2025. "Önreflexió, döntéshozatal és a vállalkozók affektív jólléte [Cognitive reflectiveness, decision-making, and entrepreneurs affective well-being]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 976-991.
    17. repec:osf:socarx:x8efq_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Alt, Marius & Bruns, Hendrik & Della Valle, Nives, 2024. "The more the better? Synergies of prosocial interventions and effects on behavioural spillovers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    19. Andreas Bjerre-Nielsen & Martin Benedikt Busch, 2022. "Statistical inference in social networks: how sampling bias and uncertainty shape decisions," Papers 2205.13046, arXiv.org.
    20. Comerford, David A., 2025. "Cognitive reflection, arithmetic ability and financial literacy independently predict both inflation expectations and forecast accuracy," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 517-531.
    21. Mathieu Chevrier & Sébastien Massoni, 2026. "When Does Advisor Confidence Improve Decisions? Evidence from Human and Algorithmic Advice," GREDEG Working Papers 2026-09, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D85 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Network Formation
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_12905. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.