The role of social networks in information diffusion

ABSTRACT

Online social networking technologies enable individuals to simultaneously share information with any number of peers. Quantifying the causal effect of these mediums on the dissemination of information requires not only identification of who influences whom, but also of whether individuals would still propagate information in the absence of social signals about that information. We examine the role of social networks in online information diffusion with a large-scale field experiment that randomizes exposure to signals about friends' information sharing among 253 million subjects in situ. Those who are exposed are significantly more likely to spread information, and do so sooner than those who are not exposed. We further examine the relative role of strong and weak ties in information propagation. We show that, although stronger ties are individually more influential, it is the more abundant weak ties who are responsible for the propagation of novel information. This suggests that weak ties may play a more dominant role in the dissemination of information online than currently believed.

References

1. L. A. Adamic and E. Adar. Friends and neighbors on the web. Social Networks, 25:211--230, 2001.
2. E. Adar and A. Adamic, Lada. Tracking information epidemics in blogspace. In 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence, Compiegne University of Technology, France, 2005.
3. E. Adar, J. Teevan, and S. T. Dumais. Resonance on the web: web dynamics and revisitation patterns. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, CHI '09, pages 1381--1390, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM Press.
4. A. Anagnostopoulos, R. Kumar, and M. Mahdian. Influence and correlation in social networks. In Proceedings of the 14th Internal Conference on Knowledge Discover & Data Mining, pages 7--15, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM Press.
5. S. Aral, L. Muchnik, and A. Sundararajan. Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 106(51):21544--21549, December 2009.
6. S. Aral and D. Walker. Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer influence in networks. Management Science, 57(9):1623--1639, Aug. 2011.
7. L. Backstrom, D. Huttenlocher, J. Kleinberg, and X. Lan. Group formation in large social networks: membership, growth, and evolution. In KDD '06: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 44--54, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.
8. E. Bakshy, J. M. Hofman, W. A. Mason, and D. J. Watts. Everyone's an influencer: Quantifying influence on twitter. In 3rd ACM Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Hong Kong, 2011. ACM Press.
9. E. Bakshy, B. Karrer, and L. Adamic. Social influence and the diffusion of user-created content. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pages 325--334. ACM, 2009.
10. H. R. Bernard, P. Killworth, D. Kronenfeld, and L. Sailer. The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of retrospective data. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 13:495--517, 1984.
11. J. J. Brown and P. H. Reingen. Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. J. Consumer Research, 14(3):pp. 350--362, 1987.
12. R. S. Burt. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.
13. D. Centola. The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment. Science, 329(5996):1194--1197, September 2010.
14. D. Centola and M. Macy. Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. Am. J. Sociol., 113(3):702--734, Nov. 2007.
15. M. Cha, A. Mislove, and K. P. Gummadi. A measurement-driven analysis of information propagation in the flickr social network. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World wide web, WWW '09, pages 721--730, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM.
16. N. A. A. Christakis and J. H. H. Fowler. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N. Engl. J. Med., 357(4):370--379, July 2007.
17. S. Fox. The social life of health information. Technical report, Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2011.
18. E. Gilbert and K. Karahalios. Predicting tie strength with social media. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '09, pages 211--220, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM.
19. M. Gladwell. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Little Brown, New York, 2000.
20. M. Gomez Rodriguez, J. Leskovec, and A. Krause. Inferring networks of diffusion and influence. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, KDD '10, pages 1019--1028, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
21. A. Goyal, F. Bonchi, and L. V. Lakshmanan. Learning influence probabilities in social networks. In Proceedings of the third ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, WSDM '10, pages 241--250, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
22. M. S. Granovetter. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol., 78(6):1360--1380, May 1973.
23. M. S. Granovetter. Threshold models of collective behavior. Am. J. Sociol., 83(6):1420--1443, 1978.
24. B. S. Greenberg. Person to person communication in the diffusion of news events. Journalism Quarterly, 41:489--494, 1964.
25. D. Gruhl, R. Guha, D. Liben-Nowell, and A. Tomkins. Information diffusion through blogspace. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 491--501. ACM, 2004.
26. K. Hampton, L. S. Goulet, L. Rainie, and K. Purcell. Social networking sites and our lives. Technical report, Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2011.
27. S. Hill, F. Provost, and C. Volinsky. Network-Based marketing: Identifying likely adopters via consumer networks. Stat. Sci., 21(2):256--276, May 2006.
28. G. Kossinets and D. J. Watts. Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. Am. J. Sociol., 115(2):405--450, September 2009.
29. K. Lerman and R. Ghosh. Information contagion: An empirical study of the spread of news on digg and twitter social networks. In Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), 2010.
30. J. Leskovec, L. A. Adamic, and B. A. Huberman. The dynamics of viral marketing. In EC '06: Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pages 228--237, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.
31. D. Liben-Nowell and J. Kleinberg. Tracing information flow on a global scale using internet chain-letter data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(12):4633, 2008.
32. C. F. Manski. Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Rev. Econ. Stud., 60(3):531--42, July 1993.
33. A. Marin. Are respondents more likely to list alters with certain characteristics? Implications for name generator data. Social Networks, 26(4):289--307, Oct. 2004.
34. M. McPherson, L. S. Lovin, and J. M. Cook. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 27(1):415--444, 2001.
35. M. E. J. Newman. Spread of epidemic disease on networks. Phys. Rev. E, 66(1):016128, Jul 2002.
36. J.-P. Onnela and F. Reed-Tsochas. Spontaneous emergence of social influence in online systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(43):18375--18380, 2010.
37. J. P. Onnela, J. Saramaki, J. Hyvönen, G. Szabó, D. Lazer, K. Kaski, J. Kertész, and A. L. Barabási. Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(18):7332--7336, May 2007.
38. K. Purcell, L. Rainie, A. Mitchell, T. Rosenstiel, and K. Olmstead. Understanding the participatory news consumer. Technical report, Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2010.
39. C. R. Shalizi and A. C. Thomas. Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies. Sociological Methods and Research, 27:211--239, 2011.
40. T. Stein, E. Chen, and K. Mangla. Facebook Immune System. In EuroSys Social Network Systems, 2011.
41. E. S. Sun, I. Rosenn, C. A. Marlow, and T. M. Lento. Gesundheit! modeling contagion through facebook news feed. In Proceedings of the 3rd Int'l AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, San Jose, CA, 2009. AAAI.
42. D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz. Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks. Nature, 393(6684):440--442, June 1998.
43. S. Wu, J. M. Hofman, W. A. Mason, and D. J. Watts. Who says what to whom on twitter. In ACM Conference on the World Wide Web, Hyderbad, India, 2011. ACM Press.

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Law, social and behavioral sciences

    • Sociology