Behavioral contagion

Last updated

Behavioral contagion is a form of social contagion involving the spread of behavior through a group. It refers to the propensity for a person to copy a certain behavior of others who are either in the vicinity, or whom they have been exposed to. The term was originally used by Gustave Le Bon in his 1895 work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind to explain undesirable aspects of behavior of people in crowds. [1] In the digital age, behavioral contagion is also concerned with the spread of online behavior and information. [2] A variety of behavioral contagion mechanisms were incorporated in models of collective human behavior. [3]

Contents

Behavioral contagion has been attributed to a variety of different factors. Often it is distinguished from collective behavior that arises from a direct attempt at social influence. A prominent theory involves the reduction of restraints, put forth by Fritz Redl in 1949 and analyzed in depth by Ladd Wheeler in 1966. [4] Social psychologists acknowledge a number of other factors, which influence the likelihood of behavioral contagion occurring, such as deindividuation (Festinger, Pepitone, & Newcomb, 1952) and the emergence of social norms (Turner, 1964). [5] In 1980, Freedman et al. have focused on the effects of physical factors on contagion, in particular, density and number. [5]

J. O. Ogunlade (1979, p. 205) describes behavioral contagion as a "spontaneous, unsolicited and uncritical imitation of another's behavior" that occurs when certain variables are met: a) the observer and the model share a similar situation or mood (this is one way behavioral contagion can be readily applied to mob psychology); b) the model's behavior encourages the observer to review his condition and to change it; c) the model's behavior would assist the observer to resolve a conflict by reducing restraints, if copied; and d) the model is assumed to be a positive reference individual. [6]

Types of contagion

Social contagion can occur through threshold models that assume that an individual needs to be convinced by a fraction of their social contacts above a given threshold to adopt a novel behaviour. [7] Therefore, the number of exposures will not increase chances of contagion unless the number of source exposures pass a certain threshold. The threshold value can divide contagion processes to two types: 1) Simple contagion and 2) Complex contagion. [8]

Simple contagion

The individual needs only one person displaying the novel behaviour to copy. For instance, cars travel in groups on a two-lane highway since the car in each cluster travels at a slower speed than the car behind it. This relative speed spreads through other cars who slow down to match the speed of the car in front. [7]

Complex contagion

The individual needs to be in contact with two or more sources exhibiting the novel behaviour. [9] This is when copying behaviours needs reinforcement or encouragement from multiple sources. Multiple sources, especially close friends, can make imitation legitimate, credible and worthwhile due to collective effort put in. Examples of complex contagions include a New York University School of Business study in California which found that households were more likely to install solar panels in neighborhoods that already had them, and that the rate of installation increases with more and more installations, creating a chain reaction that added up to a significant increase in solar adoption. [10] Other examples can be copying risky behaviour or joining social movements and riots. [11]

Factors

Strength of ties

Social contagion in simple contagion models occurs most effectively through 'weak' and 'long' ties between social contacts. A 'weak' tie between two people means they do not interact as frequently and do not influence each other as close friends. However, a relationally 'weak' tie is structurally strong if it is 'long' because it connects socially distant people, showing greater outreach than a relationally 'strong' tie. These 'long' ties allow the flow of new information increasing rate of transmission that relationally strong ties cannot do. Even though close friends can strongly influence each other, they will not help each other learn about new opportunities, ideas or behaviours in socially distant settings if they all know the same things. Few 'weak' and 'long' ties can help spread information quickly between two socially distant strong networks of people. 'Strong' ties within those networks can help spread information amongst the peers.

On the other hand, complex social contagion processes require multiple sources of influence. This is not possible with few 'weak' ties: they need to be long and multiple in number to increase the probability of imitation between socially distant networks. [7]

Structural equivalence

However, social contagion can also occur in the absence of any ties during competition. This happens when two people are structurally equivalent i.e., they occupy the same position in a social network and have the same pattern of relationships with the same people. For instance, two students publishing the same kind of research under the same professor are structurally equivalent. The more similar their relations are with other people i.e. the more substitutable they are with one another, the more they will copy what the other is doing, if it makes them look better, to stay ahead of competition. [12]

Reduction of restraints

Behavioral contagion is a result of the reduction of fear or restraints – aspects of a group or situation which prevent certain behaviors from being performed. [4] Restraints are typically group-derived, meaning that the "observer", the individual wishing to perform a certain behavior, is constrained by the fear of rejection by the group, who would view this behavior as a "lack of impulse control". [4]

An individual (the "observer") wants to perform some behavior, but that behavior would violate the unspoken and accepted rules of the group or situation they are in; these rules are the restraints preventing the observer from performing that action. Once the restraints are broken or reduced the observer is then "free" to perform the behavior; this is achieved by the "intervention" of the model. The model is another individual, in the same group or situation as the observer, who performs the behavior which the observer wished to perform. [4] Stephenson and Fielding (1971) describe this effect as "[Once] one member of a gathering has performed a commonly desired action, the payoffs for similar action or nonaction are materially altered. ... [The] initiator, by his action, establishes an inequitable advantage over the other members of the gathering which they may proceed to nullify by following his example." [1]

Density and number

Density refers to the amount of space available to a person – high density meaning there is less space per person – and number refers to the size of the group. [5] Freedman (1975) put forth the intensification theory, which posits that high density makes the other people in a group more salient features of the environment, this magnifying the individual's reaction to them. Research has shown that high density does in fact increase the likelihood of contagion (Freedman, 1975; Freedman, Birsky, & Cavoukian, 1980). [5] Number also has an effect on contagion, but to a lesser degree than density. [5]

Local trend imitation

However, the probability that an individual will copy a behaviour can also decrease with higher density and number of neighbours. For instance, a person might praise and go to a restaurant with good food based on others’ recommendations but avoid it when it becomes over-crowded. This depicts the local trend imitation phenomenon i.e. the adoption probability first increases with increase in number of adopted neighbours and then decreases. [13]

Identity of the model

Stephenson and Fielding (1971) state that the identity of the model is a factor that influences contagion (p. 81). [1] Depending on the behavior, sex of the model may be a factor in the contagion of that behavior being performed by other individuals – particularly in instances of adult models performing aggressive behavior in the presence of children-observers (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963) {Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models}. [4] In this particular series of experiments – Albert Bandura's Bobo doll experiments from 1961 and 1963 – where the behavior of children was studied after the children watched an adult model punching a bobo doll and the model received a reward, a punishment, or there were no consequences, the analyses revealed that the male model influenced the participants' behavior to a greater extent than did the female model; this was true for both the aggressive and the nonaggressive male models (p. 581). [14]

Dominant leaders

Aggressive behaviour or using coercion, fear or intimidation to imitate a behaviour is known as dominance. People are likely to follow dominant leaders to avoid the cost of punishment. However, such behaviour is more influential amongst children rather than adults: coercive children are thought to be more likeable whereas coercive adults are less likeable and, hence, influential. [15]

Prestigious influencers

While dominant behaviour is displayed in the animal kingdom as well, prestigious behaviour is unique to humans. Unlike animals, we understand the intentions behind someone's actions rather than just being able to copy their movements precisely. This is important since it is easier to learn from the best models rather than learning by ourselves: We might know which behaviour contributes to someone's success at mastering a skill. Hence, we look to see who everyone else is copying i.e. we tend to copy prestigious individuals. Prestigious people enjoy a high degree of influence and respect and are generally the people with the most information. [15]

Ordinary people

A study done on the rate of information transmission via retweets on Twitter found that popular people i.e. people with a large following, are 'inefficient hubs' in spreading concepts. The more followers someone has, the more overloaded they are with information and lower the chances that they will retweet a particular message due to limited attention. Hence, rate of social contagion slows down. [2]

Rather, social contagion can amplify amongst 'ordinary' users with low following if they are closely connected in a peer network. People are more likely to retweet messages by close friends to facilitate social bonding. Peers also have higher similar interests and are more influenced by each other than an 'ordinary' and 'popular' user who do not have mutual ties. Hence, social contagion can occur efficiently amongst tight community structures, in the absence of prestigious and dominant leaders. [2]

Media

Mass media can greatly influence people's opinions and amplify social contagion by reporting stories from socially distant and unconnected networks. They can help to turn minority opinions into the popular opinion, independent of the degree of connectivity between people. [16]

Moreover, Bandura (1977) showed that children can learn and imitate fictitious characters on television. [17]

Personality of the observer

Ogunlade (1979) found that extroverts, who are described as impulsive and sociable individuals, are more likely to be susceptible to contagion than introverted individuals, who are described as reserved and emotionally controlled. [6]

Social norms

Gino, Ayal and Ariely (2009) state that an important factor influencing contagion is the degree to which the observer identifies with the others of the group (p. 394). [18] When identification with the rest of the group is strong, the behaviors of the others will have a larger influence. [18]

However, high homophily or the likelihood of being connected to others with similar interests, can lead to both minority and majority groups overestimating their sizes and vice versa. This can cause people to falsely predict the frequency of their behaviour in the real world since they estimate based on their personal networks. When people overestimate the frequency of a particular behaviour, they may think that they are following social norms and, hence, are less willing to change. Encouraging interactions within heterophilic rather than homophilic social networks can facilitate social contagion more. [19]

Similarities and differences with other types of social influence

Contagion is only one of a myriad of types of social influence.

Conformity / social pressures

Conformity is a type of social influence that is very similar to contagion. [4] It is almost identical to another type of social influence, "pressures toward uniformity" (social pressures) (Festinger, 1954), which differ only in the research techniques they are associated with (Wheeler, 1966, p. 182). [4]

Both conformity and contagion involve some sort of conflict, but differ in the roles other individuals play in that conflict. [4] In conformity, the other individuals of the group try to pressure the observer into performing a behavior; the model then performs some other behavior in the vicinity of the observer. This results in the observer creating restraints against the pressured behavior and a conflict between the pressured behavior and the behavior performed by the model. In the end, the observer either performs the model's behavior his-/herself, rejects the model, or pressures the model to perform the original pressured behavior (Wheeler, Table 1). [4] In contagion, the model's behavior results in the removing of restraints and the resolving of the conflict, while in conformity, the model's behavior results in the creation of restraints and of the conflict. [4]

Social facilitation

Social facilitation, another type of social influence, is distinguished from contagion, as well as from conformity and social pressures, by the lack of any marked conflict. [4] It is said to occur when the performance of an instinctive pattern of behavior by an individual acts as a releaser for the same behavior in others, and so initiates the same line of action in the whole group (Thorpe, 1956, p. 120). [4] Bandura and Walters (1963, p. 79), give the example of an adult, who has lost the unique aspects of the dialect of the region where they were raised, returns for a visit and "regains" those previously lost patterns of speech. [4] Starch (1911) referred to this phenomenon as an "unintentional or unconscious imitation". [4]

Imitation

Imitation is different from contagion in that it is learned via reward and punishment and is generalized across situations. [4] Imitation can also be a generic term for contagion, conformity, social pressures, and social facilitation. [4]

(Wheeler, 1966, Table 1) [4] Dynamics of selected influence processes
Stages in influence processBehavioral contagionSocial pressures and conformitySocial facilitation
Observer's initial conditionsInstigated to BN*. Internal restraints against BN.Instigated to BP*. No restraints.No restraints against BN or BP. No instigation to BN or BP.
Model's behaviorModel performs BN.Model performs BN.Model performs BN.
Hypothetical processesReduction of model's restraints against BN. Fear reduction.Creation of restraints against BP. Conflict between BN and BP.Cognitive-behavioral chaining, CS* elicits CR*, inertia overcome.
Observer's behaviorObserver performs BN.Observer performs BN (or rejects model or induces model to perform BP).Observer performs BN.

Competition contagion on non-competitors

While behavioral contagion is largely about how people might be affected by observations of the expressions or behavior of others, research has also found contagion in the context of a competition where mere awareness of an ongoing competition can have an influence on noncompetitors' task performance, without any information about the actual behavior of the competitors. [20]

Research

Effects of group pressure

Behavioral contagion, largely discussed in the behaviors of crowds, and closely related to emotional contagion, plays a large role in gatherings of two or more people. [1] In the original Milgram experiment on obedience, for example, where participants, who were in a room with only the experimenter, were ordered to administer increasingly more severe electrical shocks as punishment to a person in another room (from here on referred to as the "victim"), the conflict or social restraint experienced by the participants was the obligation to not disobey the experimenter – even when shocking the victim to the highest shock level given, a behavior which the participants saw as opposing their personal and social ideals (Milgram, 1965, p. 129). [21]

Milgram also conducted two other experiments, replications of his original obedience experiment, with the intent being to analyze the effect of group behavior on participants: instead of the subject being alone with the experimenter, two confederates were utilized. In the first of the two experiments, "Groups for Disobedience", the confederates defied the experimenter and refused to punish the victim (p. 130). [21] This produced a significant effect on the obedience of the participants: in the original experiment, 26 of the 40 participants administered the maximum shock; in the disobedient groups experiment, only 4 of 40 participants administered the highest level of voltage (Table 1). [21] Despite this high correlation between shock level administered and the obedience of the group in the disobedient groups experiment, there was no significant correlation for the second of the replicated experiments: "Obedient Groups", where the confederates did not disobey the experimenter and, when the participant voiced angst regarding the experiment and wished to stop administering volts to the victim, the confederates voiced their disapproval (p. 133). [21] Milgram concludes the study by remarking that "the insertion of group pressure in a direction opposite that of the experimenter's commands produces a powerful shift toward the group. Changing the group movement does not yield a comparable shift in the [participant's] performance. The group success in one case and failure in another can be traced directly to the configuration of motive and social forces operative in the starting situation." That is, if the group's attitudes are similar to or compatible with the participant's/observer's, there is a greater likelihood that the participant/observer will join with the group (p. 134). [21]

Overweight and obesity

Network phenomena are relevant to obesity, which appears to spread through social ties. [22] Teenagers of US Army families assigned to counties with higher obesity rates were more likely to become overweight or obese in a 2018 study. This effect could not be explained by self-selection (homophily) or shared built environments and is attributed to social contagion. [23]

See also

Related Research Articles

Social psychology is the scientific study of how thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others. Social psychologists typically explain human behavior as a result of the relationship between mental states and social situations, studying the social conditions under which thoughts, feelings, and behaviors occur, and how these variables influence social interactions.

Observational learning is learning that occurs through observing the behavior of others. It is a form of social learning which takes various forms, based on various processes. In humans, this form of learning seems to not need reinforcement to occur, but instead, requires a social model such as a parent, sibling, friend, or teacher with surroundings. Particularly in childhood, a model is someone of authority or higher status in an environment. In animals, observational learning is often based on classical conditioning, in which an instinctive behavior is elicited by observing the behavior of another, but other processes may be involved as well.

Social learning is a theory of learning process social behavior which proposes that new behaviors can be acquired by observing and imitating others. It states that learning is a cognitive process that takes place in a social context and can occur purely through observation or direct instruction, even in the absence of motor reproduction or direct reinforcement. In addition to the observation of behavior, learning also occurs through the observation of rewards and punishments, a process known as vicarious reinforcement. When a particular behavior is rewarded regularly, it will most likely persist; conversely, if a particular behavior is constantly punished, it will most likely desist. The theory expands on traditional behavioral theories, in which behavior is governed solely by reinforcements, by placing emphasis on the important roles of various internal processes in the learning individual.

Obedience, in human behavior, is a form of "social influence in which a person yields to explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure". Obedience is generally distinguished from compliance, which some authors define as behavior influenced by peers while others use it as a more general term for positive responses to another individual's request, and from conformity, which is behavior intended to match that of the majority. Depending on context, obedience can be seen as moral, immoral, or amoral. For example, in psychological research, individuals are usually confronted with immoral demands designed to elicit an internal conflict. If individuals still choose to submit to the demand, they are acting obediently.

Social influence comprises the ways in which individuals adjust their behavior to meet the demands of a social environment. It takes many forms and can be seen in conformity, socialization, peer pressure, obedience, leadership, persuasion, sales, and marketing. Typically social influence results from a specific action, command, or request, but people also alter their attitudes and behaviors in response to what they perceive others might do or think. In 1958, Harvard psychologist Herbert Kelman identified three broad varieties of social influence.

  1. Compliance is when people appear to agree with others but actually keep their dissenting opinions private.
  2. Identification is when people are influenced by someone who is liked and respected, such as a famous celebrity.
  3. Internalization is when people accept a belief or behavior and agree both publicly and privately.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bobo doll experiment</span> Psychology experiment

The Bobo doll experiment is the collective name for a series of experiments performed by psychologist Albert Bandura to test his social learning theory. Between 1961 and 1963, he studied children's behaviour after watching an adult model act aggressively towards a Bobo doll. The most notable variation of the experiment measured the children's behavior after seeing the adult model rewarded, punished, or experience no consequence for physically abusing the Bobo doll.

Deindividuation is a concept in social psychology that is generally thought of as the loss of self-awareness in groups, although this is a matter of contention. For the social psychologist, the level of analysis is the individual in the context of a social situation. As such, social psychologists emphasize the role of internal psychological processes. Other social scientists, such as sociologists, are more concerned with broad social, economic, political, and historical factors that influence events in a given society.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theory of planned behavior</span> Theory that links behavior

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is a psychological theory that links beliefs to behavior. The theory maintains that three core components, namely, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, together shape an individual's behavioral intentions. In turn, a tenet of TPB is that behavioral intention is the most proximal determinant of human social behavior.

Emotional contagion is a form of social contagion that involves the spontaneous spread of emotions and related behaviors. Such emotional convergence can happen from one person to another, or in a larger group. Emotions can be shared across individuals in many ways, both implicitly or explicitly. For instance, conscious reasoning, analysis, and imagination have all been found to contribute to the phenomenon. The behaviour has been found in humans, other primates, dogs, and chickens.

Social facilitation is a social phenomenon in which being in the presence of others improves individual task performance. That is, people do better on tasks when they are with other people rather than when they are doing the task alone. Situations that elicit social facilitation include coaction, performing for an audience, and appears to depend on task complexity.

Social cognitive theory (SCT), used in psychology, education, and communication, holds that portions of an individual's knowledge acquisition can be directly related to observing others within the context of social interactions, experiences, and outside media influences. This theory was advanced by Albert Bandura as an extension of his social learning theory. The theory states that when people observe a model performing a behavior and the consequences of that behavior, they remember the sequence of events and use this information to guide subsequent behaviors. Observing a model can also prompt the viewer to engage in behavior they already learned. Depending on whether people are rewarded or punished for their behavior and the outcome of the behavior, the observer may choose to replicate behavior modeled. Media provides models for a vast array of people in many different environmental settings.

Behavioural change theories are attempts to explain why human behaviours change. These theories cite environmental, personal, and behavioural characteristics as the major factors in behavioural determination. In recent years, there has been increased interest in the application of these theories in the areas of health, education, criminology, energy and international development with the hope that understanding behavioural change will improve the services offered in these areas. Some scholars have recently introduced a distinction between models of behavior and theories of change. Whereas models of behavior are more diagnostic and geared towards understanding the psychological factors that explain or predict a specific behavior, theories of change are more process-oriented and generally aimed at changing a given behavior. Thus, from this perspective, understanding and changing behavior are two separate but complementary lines of scientific investigation.

Modeling is:

  1. a method used in certain cognitive-behavioral techniques of psychotherapy whereby the client learns by imitation alone, without any specific verbal direction by the therapist, and
  2. a general process in which persons serve as models for others, exhibiting the behavior to be imitated by the others This process is most commonly discussed with respect to children.

Moral disengagement is a meaning from Developmental psychology, educational psychology and social psychology for the process of convincing the self that ethical standards do not apply to oneself in a particular context. This is done by separating moral reactions from inhumane conduct and disabling the mechanism of self-condemnation. Thus, moral disengagement involves a process of cognitive re-construing or re-framing of destructive behavior as being morally acceptable without changing the behavior or the moral standards.

Conformity is the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to group norms, politics or being like-minded. Norms are implicit, specific rules, guidance shared by a group of individuals, that guide their interactions with others. People often choose to conform to society rather than to pursue personal desires – because it is often easier to follow the path others have made already, rather than forging a new one. Thus, conformity is sometimes a product of group communication. This tendency to conform occurs in small groups and/or in society as a whole and may result from subtle unconscious influences, or from direct and overt social pressure. Conformity can occur in the presence of others, or when an individual is alone. For example, people tend to follow social norms when eating or when watching television, even if alone.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social contagion</span> Spontaneous spread of behavior or emotions among a group

Social contagion involves behaviour, emotions, or conditions spreading spontaneously through a group or network. The phenomenon has been discussed by social scientists since the late 19th century, although much work on the subject was based on unclear or even contradictory conceptions of what social contagion is, so exact definitions vary. Some scholars include the unplanned spread of ideas through a population as social contagion, though others prefer to class that as memetics. Generally social contagion is understood to be separate from the collective behaviour which results from a direct attempt to exert social influence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social experiment</span> Psychological or sociological research

A social experiment is a method of psychological or sociological research that observes people's reactions to certain situations or events. The experiment depends on a particular social approach where the main source of information is the participants' point of view and knowledge. To carry out a social experiment, specialists usually split participants into two groups — active participants and respondents. Throughout the experiment, specialists monitor participants to identify the effects and differences resulting from the experiment. A conclusion is then created based on the results. Intentional communities are generally considered social experiments.

Three Degrees of Influence is a theory in the realm of social networks, proposed by Nicholas A. Christakis and James H. Fowler in 2007. It has since been explored by scientists in numerous disciplines using diverse statistical, psychological, sociological, and biological approaches.

Social determinism is the theory that social interactions alone determine individual behavior.

Moral blindness, also known as ethical blindness, is defined as a person's temporary inability to see the ethical aspect of a decision they are making. It is often caused by external factors due to which an individual is unable to see the immoral aspect of their behavior in that particular situation.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Stephenson GM, Fielding GT (June 1971). "An experimental study of the contagion of leaving behavior in small gatherings". The Journal of Social Psychology. 84 (1): 81–91. doi:10.1080/00224545.1971.9918524.
  2. 1 2 3 "Influentials, novelty, and social contagion: The viral power of average friends, close communities, and old news". Social Networks. 34: 470–480. 2012. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2012.02.005. S2CID   16725579.
  3. ↑ Castellano C, Fortunato S, Loreto V (2009). "Statistical physics of social dynamics". Rev Mod Phys. 81 (2): 591–646. arXiv: 0710.3256 . Bibcode:2009RvMP...81..591C. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.591. S2CID   118376889.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Wheeler L (1966). "Toward a theory of behavioral contagion". Psychological Review. 73 (2): 179–192. doi:10.1037/h0023023.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Freedman JL, Birsky J, Cavoukian A (1980). "Environmental determinants of behavioral contagion: density and number". Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 1 (2): 155–161. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0102_4.
  6. 1 2 Ogunlade JO (January 1979). "Personality characteristics related to susceptibility to behavioral contagion". Social Behavior and Personality. 7 (2): 205–8. doi:10.2224/sbp.1979.7.2.205.
  7. 1 2 3 Centola, Damon; Macy, Michael (2007). "Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties". American Journal of Sociology. 113 (3): 702–734. doi:10.1086/521848. JSTOR   10.1086/521848. S2CID   7298238.
  8. ↑ Centola, Damon; Macy, Michael (2007). "Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties". American Journal of Sociology. 113(30 (3): 702–734. doi:10.1086/521848. JSTOR   10.1086/521848. S2CID   7298238.
  9. ↑ Iacopini, Iacopo; Petri, Giovanni; Barrat, Alain; Latora, Vito (2019). "Simplicial models of social contagion". Nature Communications. 10 (1): 2485. arXiv: 1810.07031 . Bibcode:2019NatCo..10.2485I. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10431-6. PMC   6554271 . PMID   31171784.
  10. ↑ Einhorn, Laura. "Normative Social Influence on Meat Consumption". MPG.PuRe. Max Planck Society. Retrieved 22 February 2024.
  11. ↑ Centola, Damon; Macy, Michael (2007). "Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties". American Journal of Sociology. 113 (3): 702–734. doi:10.1086/521848. JSTOR   10.1086/521848. S2CID   7298238.
  12. ↑ Burt, Ronald S. (1987). "Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence". American Journal of Sociology. 92 (6): 1287–1335. doi:10.1086/228667. JSTOR   2779839. S2CID   22380365.
  13. ↑ Zhu, Xuzhen; Wang, Wei; Cai, Shimin; Stanley, H. Eugene (2018). "Dynamics of social contagions with local trend imitation". Scientific Reports. 8 (1): 7335. arXiv: 1709.08198 . Bibcode:2018NatSR...8.7335Z. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-25006-6. PMC   5943527 . PMID   29743569.
  14. ↑ Bandura A, Ross D, Ross SA (November 1961). "Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 63 (3): 575–82. doi:10.1037/h0045925. PMID   13864605. S2CID   18361226.
  15. 1 2 Henrich, J.; Gil-White, F. J. (2001). "The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural mechanism". Evolution and Human Behavior. 22 (3): 165–196. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4. PMID   11384884.
  16. ↑ "Network Models of Minority Opinion Spreading: Using Agent-Based Modeling to study Possible Scenarios of Social Contagion" (PDF). Social Science Computer Review. 34 (5): 567–581. 2016. doi:10.1177/0894439315605607. S2CID   62914994.
  17. ↑ Mesoudi, Alex (2009). "How Cultural Evolutionary Theory Can Inform Social Psychology and Vice Versa". Psychological Review. 116 (4): 929–952. doi:10.1037/a0017062. PMID   19839691.
  18. 1 2 Gino F, Ayal S, Ariely D (March 2009). "Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: the effect of one bad apple on the barrel". Psychological Science. 20 (3): 393–8. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02306.x. PMID   19254236. S2CID   10456659.
  19. ↑ Lee, Eun; Karimi, Fariba; Wagner, Claudia; Jo, Hang-Hyun; Strohmaier, Markus; Galesic, Mirta (2019). "Homophily and minority-group size explain perception biases in social networks". Nature Human Behaviour. 3 (10): 1078–1087. doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0677-4. PMC   6839769 . PMID   31406337.
  20. ↑ Kc RP, Kunter M, Mak V (March 2018). "The influence of a competition on noncompetitors". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 115 (11): 2716–2721. Bibcode:2018PNAS..115.2716K. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1717301115 . PMC   5856535 . PMID   29483272.
  21. 1 2 3 4 5 Milgram S (February 1965). "Liberating Effects of Group Pressure". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1 (2): 127–34. doi:10.1037/h0021650. PMID   14328710.
  22. ↑ Christakis NA, Fowler JH (July 2007). "The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years" (PDF). The New England Journal of Medicine. 357 (4): 370–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa066082 . PMID   17652652.
  23. ↑ Datar A, Mahler A, Nicosia N (March 2020). "Association of Exposure to Communities With High Obesity With Body Type Norms and Obesity Risk Among Teenagers". JAMA Network Open. 3 (3): e200846. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0846. PMC   7076332 . PMID   32176302.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.