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

Contents

The theory has since been explored by scientists in numerous disciplines using diverse statistical, mathematical, psychological, sociological, and biological approaches. Numerous large-scale in-person and online experiments have documented this phenomenon in the intervening years.

Beginning in the early 2000's, Christakis and Fowler explored the impact of social connections on behavior, describing how social influence and social contagion do 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 they have never met, to whom they are only indirectly tied.

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

In short, 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." [2] They posited a number of reasons for this decay, and they offered informational, psychological, and biological rationales.

Rationale

Influence might dissipate after roughly three degrees (to and from friends' friends' friends) for at least three reasons, Christakis and Fowler proposed: [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 and so we might not have the capacity to detect or respond to weak "signals" emanating from further away geodesically (an idea receiving subsequent support [3] ).

Scientific literature

Initial research and statistical approach

Initial studies using observational data by Christakis and Fowler suggested that a variety of attributes (like obesity, [4] smoking, [5] happiness [6] [7] and alcohol consumption [8] ), rather than being individualistic, are casually correlated by contagion mechanisms that transmit such phenomena over long distances within social networks. [9]

Certain subsequent analyses explored limitations to these analyses (subject to different statistical assumptions); [10] or expressed concern that the statistical methods employed in these analyses could not fully control for other environmental factors; [11] or noted that the statistical estimates arising from some approaches may not always have straightforward interpretations; [12] or argued that the statistical methods may not always account for homophily processes in the creation and retention of relationships over time. [13] [14]

But other scholarship using sensitivity analysis found that the basic estimates regarding the transmissibility of obesity and smoking cessation, for example, are quite robust, [15] [16] or otherwise replicated or supported the findings, [17] [18] e.g., in the case of alcohol consumption. [19] Additional, early, detailed modeling work showed that the generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling approach used by Christakis and Fowler (and other groups) was quite effective for estimating social contagion effects and in distinguishing them from homophily; [20] 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." 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 [18] —even if parametric assumptions are otherwise required to identify such effects using observational data (if substantial unobserved homophily is thought to be present). [14] Further support for the GEE modeling approach used by Christakis and Fowler also appeared. [21] And the notion of the social contagion of obesity was used in a confirmatory mathematical model in 2018. [22] [23]

Additional analytic approaches to observational data have also been supportive, including matched sample estimation, [24] and reshuffling techniques. [25] 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.

From a theoretical perspective, it has been shown [26] that the three-degrees-of-influence property naturally emerges as the outcome of the interplay between social influence, or learning dynamics, and complex networks. These studies employed emblematic models 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.

The phenomenon has also been noted using observational data regarding criminal networks, including by sociologists [27] and economists. [28] A 2023 paper referenced the principle to document the spread of attention to scientific papers online to a "depth" of three degrees and beyond. [29] A 2204 paper observed that when scientists are accused of sexual misconduct, their (and their co-authors' and their co-authors' co-authors') citations decline thereafter. [30]

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. [16]

Experiments confirming the theory

There have been many subsequent experimental studies (by many research groups, including Christakis and Fowler and their other collaborators). These studies have found strong causal evidence of contagion processes that spread beyond dyads (including out to two, three, or four degrees of separation) using randomized controlled experiments. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]

An early 2010 paper by Christakis and Fowler documented, using an in-person experiment, that cooperation behavior can cascade to three degrees of separation. [36] A 2012 experiment involved 61,000,000 people who used Facebook and it showed the spread of voting behavior out to two degrees of separation. [37] A 2014 paper confirmed the spread of emotions beyond dyads, as proposed in 2008 by Christakis and Fowler, using another massive online experiment. [38] An RCT of 24,702 people in 176 villages in Honduras (published by Edo Airoldi and Christakis in 2024) documented the spread of exogenously introduced maternal and child health knowledge and practices to two degrees of separation (among other findings). [39]

A 2011 paper by economists Carrell, Hoekstra, and West, exploited random assignment of peers in the United States Air Force Academy and found "statistically significant positive peer effects that are roughly half as large as the own effect of prior fitness on current fitness. Evidence suggests that the effects are caused primarily by friends who were the least fit, thus supporting the provocative notion that poor physical fitness spreads on a person-to-person basis" (roughly in keeping with estimates by Christakis and Fowler). [40]

The theory has also been used to develop validated algorithms for efficient influence maximization. [41]

Mechanism

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. [42] 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." [43] 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. [44]

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 and social contagion in order to optimize 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 own randomized controlled field trials have explored how to use social contagion to foster the spread of desirable innovations in rural villages. [35] [45]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Duncan J. Watts</span> American sociologist

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

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">Homophily</span> Process by which people befriend similar people

Homophily is a concept in sociology describing 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.

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.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James H. Fowler</span> American social scientist (born 1970)

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Echo chamber (media)</span> Situation that reinforces beliefs by repetition inside a closed system

In news media and social media, an echo chamber is an environment or ecosystem in which participants encounter beliefs that amplify or reinforce their preexisting beliefs by communication and repetition inside a closed system and insulated from rebuttal. An echo chamber circulates existing views without encountering opposing views, potentially resulting in confirmation bias. Echo chambers may increase social and political polarization and extremism. On social media, it is thought that echo chambers limit exposure to diverse perspectives, and favor and reinforce presupposed narratives and ideologies.

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 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. In the digital age, behavioral contagion is also concerned with the spread of online behavior and information. A variety of behavioral contagion mechanisms were incorporated in models of collective human behavior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nicholas Christakis</span> American physician and sociologist (born 1962)

Nicholas A. Christakis is a Greek-American sociologist and physician known for his research on social networks and on the social, economic, biological, and evolutionary determinants of human welfare. 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Friendship paradox</span> Phenomenon that most people have fewer friends than their friends have, on average

The friendship paradox is the phenomenon first observed by the sociologist Scott L. Feld in 1991 that on average, an individual's friends have more friends than that individual. 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. In other words, 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.

<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">Betweenness centrality</span> Measure of a graphs centrality, based on shortest paths

In graph theory, betweenness centrality is a measure of centrality in a graph based on shortest paths. For every pair of vertices in a connected graph, there exists at least one shortest path between the vertices such that either the number of edges that the path passes through or the sum of the weights of the edges is minimized. The betweenness centrality for each vertex is the number of these shortest paths that pass through the vertex.

Complex contagion is the phenomenon in social networks in which multiple sources of exposure to an innovation are required before an individual adopts the change of behavior. It differs from simple contagion in that unlike a disease, it may not be possible for the innovation to spread after only one incident of contact with an infected neighbor. The spread of complex contagion across a network of people may depend on many social and economic factors; for instance, how many of one's friends adopt the new idea as well as how many of them cannot influence the individual, as well as their own disposition in embracing change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social network</span> Social structure made up of a set of social actors

A social network is a social structure consisting of a set of social actors, sets of dyadic ties, and other social interactions between actors. The social network perspective provides a set of methods for analyzing the structure of whole social entities as well as a variety of theories explaining the patterns observed in these structures. The study of these structures uses social network analysis to identify local and global patterns, locate influential entities, and examine network dynamics. For instance, social network analysis has been used in studying the spread of misinformation on social media platforms or analyzing the influence of key figures in social networks.

Matthew Owen Jackson is the William D. Eberle Professor of Economics at Stanford University, an external faculty member of the Santa Fe Institute, and a fellow of CIFAR.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Damon Centola</span> Researcher in network science and related at the University of Pennsylvania

Damon Centola is an American sociologist and the Elihu Katz Professor of Communication, Sociology and Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania, where he is Director of the Network Dynamics Group and Senior Fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cognitive social structures</span> Focus of social network research

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.

References

  1. ↑ "The hidden influence of social networks Nicholas Christakis on TED.com". 10 May 2010.
  2. 1 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   10.1.1.581.4893 . 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. ↑ Rosenquist, J. N.; Fowler, J. H.; Christakis, N. A. (March 2011). "Social network determinants of depression". Molecular Psychiatry. 16 (3): 273–281. doi:10.1038/mp.2010.13. ISSN   1476-5578. PMC   3832791 .
  8. ↑ Rosenquist, J. Niels (2010-04-06). "The Spread of Alcohol Consumption Behavior in a Large Social Network". Annals of Internal Medicine. 152 (7): 426. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-152-7-201004060-00007. ISSN   0003-4819. PMC   3343772 .
  9. ↑ 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.
  10. ↑ 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.
  11. ↑ 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.
  12. ↑ 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. S2CID   14223489.
  13. ↑ 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. S2CID   13937621.
  14. 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.
  15. ↑ 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.
  16. 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.
  17. ↑ 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. S2CID   144012349.
  18. 1 2 Steeg, A. Galstyan (2012). "Statistical Tests for Contagion in Observational Social Network Studies". Journal of Machine Learning Research: 563–571. arXiv: 1211.4889 .
  19. ↑ van den Ende, Maarten W. J.; van der Maas, Han L. J.; Epskamp, Sacha; Lees, Mike H. (2024-02-24). "Alcohol consumption as a socially contagious phenomenon in the Framingham Heart Study social network". Scientific Reports. 14 (1): 4499. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-54155-0. ISSN   2045-2322. PMC   11052543 .
  20. ↑ 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.
  21. ↑ 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. Vol. 513. pp. 69–77. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-01787-7_7. ISBN   978-3-319-01786-0.
  22. ↑ Ejima, Keisuke; Thomas, Diana M.; Allison, David B. (May 2018). "A Mathematical Model for Predicting Obesity Transmission with Both Genetic and Nongenetic Heredity". Obesity. 26 (5): 927–933. doi:10.1002/oby.22135. ISSN   1930-7381. PMC   5916034 . PMID   29575611.
  23. ↑ Servick, Kelly (February 19, 2017). "Should we treat obesity like a contagious disease?". Science.
  24. ↑ 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.
  25. ↑ Anagnostopoulos, Aris; Kumar, Ravi; Mahdian, Mohammad (2008). "Influence and correlation in social networks". Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. pp. 7–15. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.227.5676 . doi:10.1145/1401890.1401897. ISBN   9781605581934. S2CID   7995562.
  26. ↑ 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. Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112i8702P. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.098702. hdl: 1822/64002 . PMID   24655286.
  27. ↑ 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.
  28. ↑ "DP19159 Spillovers in Criminal Networks: Evidence from Co-Offender Deaths". CEPR. 2024-06-13. Retrieved 2024-06-28.
  29. ↑ Cao, Renmeng; Liu, Xiao Fan; Fang, Zhichao; Xu, Xiao-Ke; Wang, Xianwen (2023-01-01). "How do scientific papers from different journal tiers gain attention on social media?". Information Processing & Management. 60 (1): 103152. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103152. ISSN   0306-4573.
  30. ↑ Widmann, R; Rose, Michael; Chugunova, Marina. "Allegations of Sexual Misconduct, Accused Scientists, and Their Research (October 25, 2023)". Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper. 22–18.
  31. ↑ Centola, Damon (2010). "The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment". Science. 329 (5995): 1194–1197. Bibcode:2010Sci...329.1194C. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.701.3842 . doi:10.1126/science.1185231. PMID   20813952. S2CID   3265637.
  32. ↑ 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.
  33. ↑ 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.
  34. ↑ 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
  35. 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". The Lancet. 386 (9989): 145–153. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60095-2. ISSN   0140-6736. PMC   4638320 . PMID   25952354.
  36. ↑ Fowler, James H.; Christakis, Nicholas A. (2010-03-23). "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 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   2851803 . PMID   20212120.
  37. ↑ 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.
  38. ↑ 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.
  39. ↑ Airoldi, Edoardo M.; Christakis, Nicholas A. (2024-05-03). "Induction of social contagion for diverse outcomes in structured experiments in isolated villages". Science. 384 (6695): eadi5147. doi: 10.1126/science.adi5147 . ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   38696582.
  40. ↑ Carrell, Scott E.; Hoekstra, Mark; West, James E. (August 2011). "Is poor fitness contagious?". Journal of Public Economics. 95 (7–8): 657–663. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.12.005. ISSN   0047-2727.
  41. ↑ 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. Vol. 9098. pp. 465–468. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21042-1_42. ISBN   978-3-319-21041-4.
  42. ↑ 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.
  43. ↑ Moussaid, M (2017-04-18). "Reach and Speed of Judgment Propagation in the Laboratory". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (16): 4117–4122. arXiv: 1704.01381 . Bibcode:2017PNAS..114.4117M. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1611998114 . PMC   5402452 . PMID   28373540.
  44. ↑ 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.
  45. ↑ 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.
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.