Ibution inside the simulation tested against CX (light coral Disperse Blue 148 colour) and
Ibution in the simulation tested against CX (light coral colour) and CX’ (light steel blue 
colour). The shaded areas mark one common error above and under the implies. The horizontal dotted line shows the inequality degree of the original distribution. (TIF) S3 Fig. The typical inequality level (Gini coefficient) of the endround distribution within the simulation tested against CR (light coral colour) and CR’ (light steel blue color). The shaded regions mark 1 common error above and below the signifies. The horizontal dotted line shows the inequality amount of the original distribution. (TIF) S4 Fig. The typical inequality level (Gini coefficient) from the endround distribution inside the simulation tested against CL (light coral color) and CL’ (light steel blue colour). The shaded areas mark 1 regular error above and beneath PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25880723 the signifies. The horizontal dotted line shows the inequality level of the original distribution. (TIF)PLOS One DOI:0.37journal.pone.028777 June 0,0 An Experiment on Egalitarian Sharing in NetworksS5 Fig. The average inequality level (Gini coefficient) in the endround distribution inside the simulation tested against CK (light coral colour) and CK’ (light steel blue color). The shaded locations mark one particular standard error above and beneath the signifies. The horizontal dotted line shows the inequality degree of the original distribution. (TIF) S6 Fig. The average inequality level (Gini coefficient) of your endround distribution inside the simulation tested against (light coral colour) and 2 (light steel blue colour). The shaded regions mark one regular error above and under the suggests. The horizontal dotted line shows the inequality level of the original distribution. (TIF) S7 Fig. The proportion of participants that had donated in every single round of your experiment. The values represent the imply proportions. (TIF) S8 Fig. The proportion of an individual’s income provided to other people over the experiment. The Figure plots the mean proportions in every single round from the experiment. (TIF) S9 Fig. The distributions of donations from donors to recipients in the experiment marked by initial revenue levels. The xaxis (width) represents a donor’s initial income levels and also the yaxis (depth) shows a recipient’s initial income levels. The accumulated donations delivered from the donor for 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 from the Network Topologies. (DOCX) S2 File. The AgentBased Model. (DOCX) S3 File. Experiment Instruction.
Researchers usually distinguish amongst groups and social categories. Group research tends to concentrate on little dynamic groups with some kind of interdependence and social interaction. By contrast, studies of social categories frequently focus on group members’ perceptions of significant social groups that exist by virtue of some shared house like nationality or ethnicity (e.g ). Although categorical processes seem to be a lot more prevalent in massive groups and interactive processes in modest groups [2] we think that both sets of processes occur in all groups (modest and massive) to some extent. Inside the present paper, our broad aim would be to study a lot more regarding the operation of interactive and categorical processes in little groups, as a way to fully grasp how feelings of solidarity emerge. Solidarity may perhaps emerge in the recognition of similarities in between people: Uniformity of characteristics or actions fosters both perceptions of entitativity and social categorization (e.g [4.
