Three degrees of influence

Last updated

Three Degrees of Influence is a theory in the realm of social networks, [1] 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.


Christakis and Fowler explored the influence of social connections on behavior. They described how social influence does not end with the people to whom a person is directly connected. People influence their friends, who in turn influence their friends, and so on; hence, a person's beliefs and actions can influence people he or she has never met, to whom he or she is only indirectly tied. Christakis and Fowler posited that diverse phenomena "ripple through our network, having an impact on our friends (one degree), our friends’ friends (two degrees), and even our friends’ friends’ friends (three degrees). Our influence gradually dissipates and ceases to have a noticeable effect on people beyond the social frontier that lies at three degrees of separation." They posited a number of reasons for this decay, and they offered informational, psychological, and biological rationales.

This argument is basically that peer effects need not stop at one degree of separation. However, across a broad set of empirical settings, using both observational and experimental methods, they observed that the effect seems, in many cases, to no longer be meaningful at a social horizon of three degrees.

Using both observational and experimental methods, Christakis and Fowler examined phenomena from various domains, such as obesity, happiness, cooperation, voting, and various public health beliefs and behaviors. Investigations by other groups have subsequently explored many other phenomena in this way (including crime, social learning, etc.).


Influence dissipates after three degrees (to and from friends’ friends’ friends) for three reasons, Christakis and Fowler propose: [2]

  1. Intrinsic decay -- corruption of information, or a kind of "social friction" (like the game telephone).
  2. Network instability -- social ties become unstable (and are not constant across time) at a horizon of more than three degrees of separation.
  3. Evolutionary purpose -- we evolved in small groups where everyone was connected by three degrees or fewer (an idea receiving subsequent support [3] ).

Scientific literature

Initial studies using observational data by Christakis and Fowler suggested that a variety of attributes (like obesity, [4] smoking, [5] and happiness [6] ), rather than being individualistic, are casually correlated by contagion mechanisms that transmit such phenomena over long distances within social networks. [7] Certain subsequent analyses have explored limitations to these analyses (subject to different statistical assumptions); [8] or have expressed concern that the statistical methods employed in these analyses cannot fully control for other environmental factors; [9] or have noted that the statistical estimates arising from some approaches may not always have straightforward interpretations; [10] or have argued that the statistical methods may not always account for homophily processes in the creation and retention of relationships over time. [11] [12]

But other scholarship using sensitivity analysis has found that the basic estimates regarding the transmissibility of obesity and smoking cessation, for example, are quite robust, [13] [14] or has otherwise replicated or supported the findings. [15] [16] Additional, detailed modeling work published in 2016 showed that the GEE modeling approach used by Christakis and Fowler (and others) was quite effective for estimating social contagion effects and in distinguishing them from homophily. [17] This paper concluded, "For network influence, we find that the approach appears to have excellent sensitivity, and quite good specificity with regard to distinguishing the presence or absence of such a 'network effect,' regardless of whether or not homophily is present in network formation. This was true for small cohorts (n = 30) and larger cohorts (n = 1000), and for cohorts that displayed lesser and greater realism in their distribution of friendships." Another methodological paper concluded that it is indeed possible to bound estimates of peer effects even given the modeling constraints faced by Christakis and Fowler [16] -- even if parametric assumptions are otherwise required to identify such effects using observational data (if substantial unobserved homophily is thought to be present). [12]

Additional support for the modeling approach used by Christakis and Fowler provided by other authors has continued to appear [18] . From a theoretical perspective, it has been shown [19] that this property naturally emerges as the outcome of the interplay between social influence, or learning dynamics, and complex networks. These studies employ emblematic models used to study the diffusion of information, opinions, ideas and behaviors on a wide range of network topologies, showing also under which conditions violations of the "three degrees of influence” can be expected including of the three-degrees-of-influence property. Additional analytic approaches to observational data have also been supportive, including matched sample estimation, [20] and reshuffling techniques. [21] The reshuffling technique validated the "edge directionality test" as an identification strategy for causal peer effects; this technique was first proposed by Christakis and Fowler as a tool for estimating such effects in network analysis in their 2007 obesity paper.

Christakis and Fowler reviewed critical and supportive findings regarding the three degrees of influence phenomenon and the analytic approaches used to discern it with observational data in 2013. [14]

In addition, subsequent experimental studies (by many research groups, including Christakis and Fowler) have found strong causal evidence of behavioral contagion processes that spread beyond dyads (including out to two, three, or four degrees of separation) using randomized controlled experiments, [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] including one experiment involving 61,000,000 people that showed spread of voting behavior out to two degrees of separation. [27] A 2014 paper also confirmed the spread of emotions beyond dyads, as proposed in 2008 by Christakis and Fowler, using another massive online experiment. [28] The "three degrees of influence" property has also been noted by other groups using observational data regarding criminal networks. [29]

Diverse lines of work have also explored the specific biopsychosocial mechanisms for the boundedness of contagion effects, some of which had been theorized by Christakis and Fowler. Experiments by Moussaid et al evaluated the spread of risk perception, and documented inflection at approximately three degrees. [30] Another set of experiments documented the impact of information distortion, noting that "despite strong social influence within pairs of individuals, the reach of judgment propagation across a chain rarely exceeded a social distance of three to four degrees of separation.... We show that information distortion and the overweighting of other people’s errors are two individual-level mechanisms hindering judgment propagation at the scale of the chain." [31] And experiments with fMRI scans in a sociocentrically mapped network of graduate students, published in 2018, showed that neural responses to conceptual stimuli were similar between friends, with a nadir at three degrees of separation, providing further biological evidence for this theory. [32]

The theory has also been used to develop validated algorithms for efficient influence maximization. [33]

Moral implications

The idea of network influence raises the question of free will, because it suggests that people are influenced by factors which they cannot control and which they are not aware of. Christakis and Fowler claim in their book, Connected, that policy makers should use knowledge about social network effects in order to create a better society with a more efficient public policy. This applies to many aspects of life, from public health to economics. For instance, when resources are scarce, they note that it might be preferable to immunize individuals located in the center of a network in preference to structurally peripheral individuals. Or, it might be much more effective to motivate clusters of people to avoid criminal behavior than to act upon individuals or than to punish each criminal separately. Their subsequent work has explored how to use social contagion to foster the spread of desirable innovations in rural villages. [26] [34]

See also

Related Research Articles

Duncan J. Watts Australian physicist and sociologist

Duncan James Watts is a sociologist and a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He was formerly a principal researcher at Microsoft Research, New York City known for his work on small-world networks.

Social influence refers to the way in which individuals change 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.
Diffusion of innovations theory

Diffusion of innovations is a theory that seeks to explain how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread. Everett Rogers, a professor of communication studies, popularized the theory in his book Diffusion of Innovations; the book was first published in 1962, and is now in its fifth edition (2003). Rogers argues that diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated over time among the participants in a social system. The origins of the diffusion of innovations theory are varied and span multiple disciplines.

Weight gain

Weight gain is an increase in body weight. This can involve an increase in muscle mass, fat deposits, excess fluids such as water or other factors. Weight gain can be a symptom of a serious medical condition.

Homophily Process by which people befriend similar people

Homophily is the tendency of individuals to associate and bond with similar others, as in the proverb "birds of a feather flock together." The presence of homophily has been discovered in a vast array of network studies: over 100 studies have observed homophily in some form or another, and they establish that similarity is associated with connection. The categories on which homophily occurs include age, gender, class, and organizational role.

The Framingham Heart Study is a long-term, ongoing cardiovascular cohort study of residents of the city of Framingham, Massachusetts. The study began in 1948 with 5,209 adult subjects from Framingham, and is now on its fourth generation of participants. Prior to the study almost nothing was known about the epidemiology of hypertensive or arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Much of the now-common knowledge concerning heart disease, such as the effects of diet, exercise, and common medications such as aspirin, is based on this longitudinal study. It is a project of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, in collaboration with Boston University. Various health professionals from the hospitals and universities of Greater Boston staff the project.

Emotional contagion is the phenomenon of having one person's emotions and related behaviors directly trigger similar emotions and behaviors in other people. Emotions can be shared across individuals in many different ways both implicitly or explicitly. For instance, conscious reasoning, analysis and imagination have all been found to contribute to the phenomenon.

In the study of complex networks, assortative mixing, or assortativity, is a bias in favor of connections between network nodes with similar characteristics. In the specific case of social networks, assortative mixing is also known as homophily. The rarer disassortative mixing is a bias in favor of connections between dissimilar nodes.

A web-based experiment or Internet-based experiment is an experiment that is conducted over the Internet. In such experiments, the Internet is either "a medium through which to target larger and more diverse samples with reduced administrative and financial costs" or "a field of social science research in its own right." Psychology and Internet studies are probably the disciplines that have used these experiments most widely, although a range of other disciplines including political science and economics also use web-based experiments. Within psychology most web-based experiments are conducted in the areas of cognitive psychology and social psychology. This form of experimental setup has become increasingly popular because researchers can cheaply collect large amounts of data from a wider range of locations and people. A web-based experiment is a type of online research method. Web based experiments have become significantly more widespread since the COVID-19 pandemic, as researchers have been unable to conduct lab-based experiments.

James H. Fowler American academic

James H. Fowler is an American social scientist specializing in social networks, cooperation, political participation, and genopolitics. He is currently Professor of Medical Genetics in the School of Medicine and Professor of Political Science in the Division of Social Science at the University of California, San Diego. He was named a 2010 Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation.

Social network analysis software is software which facilitates quantitative or qualitative analysis of social networks, by describing features of a network either through numerical or visual representation.

An ecological network is a representation of the biotic interactions in an ecosystem, in which species (nodes) are connected by pairwise interactions (links). These interactions can be trophic or symbiotic. Ecological networks are used to describe and compare the structures of real ecosystems, while network models are used to investigate the effects of network structure on properties such as ecosystem stability.

Behavioral contagion or social contagion is a type of social influence. 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. In the digital age, behavioural contagion is also concerned with the spread of online behaviour and information. A variety of behavioral contagion mechanisms were incorporated in models of collective human behavior.

Nicholas Christakis American physician and sociologist

Nicholas A. Christakis is a Greek-American sociologist and physician known for his research on social networks and on the socioeconomic, biosocial, and evolutionary determinants of behavior, health, and longevity. He is the Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Science at Yale University, where he directs the Human Nature Lab. He is also the Co-Director of the Yale Institute for Network Science.

Biological network

A biological network is any network that applies to biological systems. A network is any system with sub-units that are linked into a whole, such as species units linked into a whole food web. Biological networks provide a mathematical representation of connections found in ecological, evolutionary, and physiological studies, such as neural networks. The analysis of biological networks with respect to human diseases has led to the field of network medicine.

The friendship paradox is the phenomenon first observed by the sociologist Scott L. Feld in 1991 that most people have fewer friends than their friends have, on average. It can be explained as a form of sampling bias in which people with more friends are more likely to be in one's own friend group. Or, said another way, one is less likely to be friends with someone who has very few friends. In contradiction to this, most people believe that they have more friends than their friends have.

In mathematical modeling of social networks, link-centric preferential attachment is a node's propensity to re-establish links to nodes it has previously been in contact with in time-varying networks. This preferential attachment model relies on nodes keeping memory of previous neighbors up to the current time.

Global cascades model

Global cascades models are a class of models aiming to model large and rare cascades that are triggered by exogenous perturbations which are relatively small compared with the size of the system. The phenomenon occurs ubiquitously in various systems, like information cascades in social systems, stock market crashes in economic systems, and cascading failure in physics infrastructure networks. The models capture some essential properties of such phenomenon.

Damon Centola researcher in network science and related at the University of Pennsylvania

Damon Centola is a professor in the Annenberg School for Communication, the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and the Department of Sociology in the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, where he is director of the Network Dynamics Group. Previously, he was an assistant professor at M.I.T. Sloan School of Management (2008–2013). He was also a Robert Wood Johnson Fellow at Harvard University, a member of Sci Foo Campers community, and a fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University.

Cognitive social structures

Cognitive social structures (CSS) is the focus of research that investigates how individuals perceive their own social structure. It is part of social network research and uses social network analysis to understand how various factors affect one's cognitive representation of the network. Importantly, an individual's perception of the network may be different than reality. In fact, these differences between the perceived network and the actual network are the focus of many studies that seek insight into how we think about others and our relationships.


  1. "The hidden influence of social networks Nicholas Christakis on".
  2. Connected Preface+chapter1
  3. Morgan, TJH; et al. (2015). "Experimental evidence for the co-evolution of hominin tool-making teaching and language". Nature Communications. 6: 6029. Bibcode:2015NatCo...6.6029M. doi:10.1038/ncomms7029. PMC   4338549 . PMID   25585382.
  4. Christakis, Nicholas A.; Fowler, James H. (2007). "The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network over 32 Years". The New England Journal of Medicine. 357 (4): 370–379. CiteSeerX . doi:10.1056/NEJMsa066082. PMID   17652652.
  5. Christakis, Nicholas A.; Fowler, James H. (2008). "The Collective Dynamics of Smoking in a Large Social Network". The New England Journal of Medicine. 358 (21): 2249–2258. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0706154. PMC   2822344 . PMID   18499567.
  6. Christakis, Nicholas A.; Fowler, James H. (2008). "Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study". British Medical Journal. 337 (337): a2338. doi:10.1136/bmj.a2338. PMC   2600606 . PMID   19056788.
  7. Christakis, Nicholas A.; Fowler, James H. (2009). Connected:The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives . Little, Brown and Co. ISBN   978-0316036146.
  8. Cohen-Cole, Ethan; Fletcher, Jason M. (2008). "Detecting implausible social network effects in acne, height, and headaches: longitudinal analysis". British Medical Journal. 337: a2533. doi:10.1136/bmj.a2533. PMC   2600605 . PMID   19056789.
  9. Cohen-Cole, Ethan; Fletcher, Jason M. (2008). "Is obesity contagious? Social networks vs. environmental factors in the obesity epidemic" (PDF). Journal of Health Economics. 27 (5): 1382–1387. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.04.005. PMID   18571258.
  10. Lyons, Russell (2011). "The Spread of Evidence-Poor Medicine via Flawed Social Network Analysis". Statistics, Politics, and Policy. 2 (1). arXiv: 1007.2876 . doi:10.2202/2151-7509.1024.
  11. Noel, Hans; Nyhan, Brendan (2011). "The 'unfriending problem': The consequences of homophily in friendship retention for causal estimates of social influence". Social Networks. 33 (3): 211–218. arXiv: 1009.3243 . doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2011.05.003.
  12. 1 2 Shalizi, Cosma R.; Thomas, Andrew C. (2011). "Homphily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies". Sociological Methods & Research. 40 (2): 211–239. arXiv: 1004.4704 . doi:10.1177/0049124111404820. PMC   3328971 . PMID   22523436.
  13. VanderWeele, Tyler J. (2011). "Sensitivity Analysis for Contagion Effects in Social Networks". Sociological Methods & Research. 40 (2): 240–255. doi:10.1177/0049124111404821. PMC   4288024 . PMID   25580037.
  14. 1 2 Christakis, NA; Fowler, JH (2013). "Social Contagion Theory: ExaminingDynamic Social Networks and Human Behavior". Statistics in Medicine. 32 (4): 556–577. doi:10.1002/sim.5408. PMC   3830455 . PMID   22711416.
  15. Ali, MM; Amialchuk, A; Gao, S; Heiland, F (2012). "Adolescent Weight Gain and Social Networks: Is There a Contagion Effect?". Applied Economics. 44 (23): 2969–2983. doi:10.1080/00036846.2011.568408.
  16. 1 2 Steeg, A. Galstyan (2012). "Statistical Tests for Contagion in Observational Social Network Studies". Journal of Machine Learning Research: 563–571.
  17. Zachrison, Kori (2016). "Can Longitudinal Generalized Estimating Equation Models Distinguish Network Influence and Homophily? An Agent-Based Modeling Approach to Measurement Characteristics". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 16 (1): 174. doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0274-4. PMC   5192582 . PMID   28031023.
  18. Gonzalez-Pardo, A.; Cajias, R.; Camacho, D. (2014). "An Agent Based Simulation of Christakis-Fowler Social Model". Recent Developments in Computational Collective Intelligence. Studies in Computational Intelligence. 513: 69–77. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-01787-7_7. ISBN   978-3-319-01786-0.
  19. Pinheiro, Flávio L.; Santos, Marta D.; Santos, Francisco C.; Pacheco, Jorge M. (2014). "Origin of Peer Influence in Social Networks" (PDF). Physical Review Letters. 112 (9): 098702. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.098702. hdl:1822/64002. PMID   24655286.
  20. Aral, Sinan; Muchnik, Lev; Sunararajan, Arun (2009). "Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (51): 21544–21549. Bibcode:2009PNAS..10621544A. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908800106. PMC   2799846 . PMID   20007780.
  21. Anagnostopoulos, Aris; Kumar, Ravi; Mahdian, Mohammad (2008). Influence and Correlation in Social Networks. Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. pp. 7–15. CiteSeerX . doi:10.1145/1401890.1401897. ISBN   9781605581934.
  22. Centola, Damon (2010). "The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment". Science. 329 (5995): 1194–1197. Bibcode:2010Sci...329.1194C. CiteSeerX . doi:10.1126/science.1185231. PMID   20813952.
  23. Fowler, James H.; Christakis, Nicholas A. (2010). "Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (12): 5334–5338. arXiv: 0908.3497 . Bibcode:2010PNAS..107.5334F. doi:10.1073/pnas.0913149107. PMC   2851803 . PMID   20212120.
  24. Aral, Sinan; Walker, Dylan (2011). "Creating Social Contagion Through Viral Product Design: A Randomized Trial of Peer Influence in Networks". Management Science. 57 (9): 1623–1639. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1421.
  25. Rand D, Arbesman S, and Christakis NA,"Dynamic Social Networks Promote Cooperation in Experiments with Humans," PNAS:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2011; 108: 19193-19198
  26. 1 2 Kim, David A; Hwong, Alison R; Stafford, Derek; Hughes, D Alex; O'Malley, A James; Fowler, James H; Christakis, Nicholas A (2015-07-11). "Social network targeting to maximise population behaviour change: a cluster randomised controlled trial" (PDF). The Lancet. 386 (9989): 145–153. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60095-2. ISSN   0140-6736. PMC   4638320 . PMID   25952354.
  27. Bond, RM; Fariss, CJ; Jones, JJ; Kramer, ADI; Marlow, C; Settle, JE; Fowler, JH (2012). "A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization". Nature. 489 (7415): 295–298. Bibcode:2012Natur.489..295B. doi:10.1038/nature11421. PMC   3834737 . PMID   22972300.
  28. Kramer, ADI; Guillory, JE; Hancock, JT (2014). "Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (24): 8788–8790. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.8788K. doi:10.1073/pnas.1320040111. PMC   4066473 . PMID   24889601.
  29. Wildeman, Christopher; Papachristos, Andrew V. (2014). "Network Exposure and Homicide Victimization in an African American Community". American Journal of Public Health. 104 (1): 143–150. doi:10.2105/ajph.2013.301441. PMC   3910040 . PMID   24228655.
  30. Moussaid, M; Brighton, H; Gaissmaier, W (2015). "The amplification of risk in experimental diffusion chains" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (18): 5631–5636. arXiv: 1504.05331 . Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.5631M. doi:10.1073/pnas.1421883112. PMC   4426405 . PMID   25902519.
  31. Moussaid, M (2017-04-18). "Reach and Speed of Judgment Propagation in the Laboratory" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (16): 4117–4122. doi:10.1073/pnas.1611998114. PMC   5402452 . PMID   28373540.
  32. Parkinson, Carolyn; Kleinbaum, Adam M.; Wheatley, Thalia (2018-01-30). "Similar neural responses predict friendship". Nature Communications. 9 (1): 332. Bibcode:2018NatCo...9..332P. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02722-7. ISSN   2041-1723. PMC   5790806 . PMID   29382820.
  33. Qin, Yadong; Ma, Jun; Gao, Shuai (2015-06-08). Efficient Influence Maximization Based on Three Degrees of Influence Theory. Web-Age Information Management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 9098. pp. 465–468. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21042-1_42. ISBN   978-3-319-21041-4.
  34. Shakya, Holly (2017). "Exploiting social influence to magnify population-level behaviour change in maternal and child health: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of network targeting algorithms in rural Honduras". BMJ Open. 7 (3): e012996. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012996. ISSN   2044-6055. PMC   5353315 . PMID   28289044.