Ibution in the simulation tested against CX (light coral color) and
Ibution within the simulation tested against CX (light coral colour) and CX’ (light steel blue color). The shaded places mark one regular error above and below the means. The horizontal dotted line shows the inequality amount of the original distribution. (TIF) S3 Fig. The typical inequality level (Gini coefficient) of your endround distribution inside the simulation tested against CR (light coral colour) and CR’ (light steel blue colour). The shaded locations mark a single regular error above and beneath the implies. The horizontal dotted line shows the inequality amount of the original distribution. (TIF) S4 Fig. The typical inequality level (Gini coefficient) of your endround distribution inside the simulation tested against CL (light coral color) and CL’ (light steel blue color). The shaded locations mark one common error above and under PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25880723 the means. The horizontal dotted line shows the inequality amount of the original distribution. (TIF)PLOS One particular DOI:0.37journal.pone.028777 June 0,0 An Experiment on Egalitarian Sharing in NetworksS5 Fig. The average inequality level (Gini coefficient) from the endround distribution within the simulation tested against CK (light coral colour) and 
CK’ (light steel blue colour). The shaded locations mark one particular regular error above and below the suggests. The horizontal dotted line shows the inequality degree of the original distribution. (TIF) S6 Fig. The typical inequality level (Gini coefficient) on the endround distribution within the simulation tested against (light coral color) and two (light steel blue colour). The shaded regions mark one standard error above and beneath the suggests. The horizontal dotted line shows the inequality degree of the original distribution. (TIF) S7 Fig. The proportion of participants that had donated in each round of the experiment. The values represent the mean proportions. (TIF) S8 Fig. The proportion of an individual’s revenue provided to other people over the experiment. The Figure plots the mean proportions in every single round with the experiment. (TIF) S9 Fig. The distributions of donations from donors to recipients in the experiment marked by initial income levels. The xaxis (width) represents a donor’s initial revenue levels and also the yaxis (depth) shows a recipient’s initial earnings levels. The accumulated donations delivered in the donor towards the recipient are marked around the zaxis (height). Panel (a) shows the Lattice_Hetero network and (b) the Lattice_Homo network. (TIF) S File. Generation of the Network Topologies. (DOCX) S2 File. The AgentBased Model. (DOCX) S3 File. Experiment Instruction.
Researchers frequently distinguish between groups and social categories. Group research tends to concentrate on smaller dynamic groups with some kind of interdependence and social interaction. By contrast, research of social categories generally concentrate on group members’ perceptions of large social groups that exist by virtue of some shared property like nationality or ethnicity (e.g ). Although categorical processes seem to GNF-6231 web become additional prevalent in huge groups and interactive processes in small groups [2] we believe that both sets of processes occur in all groups (small and huge) to some extent. In the present paper, our broad aim should be to discover additional regarding the operation of interactive and categorical processes in little groups, as a way to recognize how feelings of solidarity emerge. Solidarity might emerge in the recognition of similarities between folks: Uniformity of qualities or actions fosters both perceptions of entitativity and social categorization (e.g [4.
