Sharad Goel
Duncan J. Watts
Daniel G. Goldstein
ABSTRACT
Models of networked diffusion that are motivated by analogy with the spread of infectious disease have been applied to a wide range of social and economic adoption processes, including those related to new products, ideas, norms and behaviors. However, it is unknown how accurately these models account for the empirical structure of diffusion over networks. Here we describe the diffusion patterns arising from seven online domains, ranging from communications platforms to networked games to microblogging services, each involving distinct types of content and modes of sharing. We find strikingly similar patterns across all domains.
In particular, the vast majority of cascades are small, and are described by a handful of simple tree structures that terminate within one degree of an initial adopting "seed." In addition we find that structures other than these account for only a tiny fraction of total adoptions; that is, adoptions resulting from chains of referrals are extremely rare. Finally, even for the largest cascades that we observe, we find that the bulk of adoptions often takes place within one degree of a few dominant individuals. Together, these observations suggest new directions for modeling of online adoption processes.
- Adar, E. and Adamic, L. 2005. Tracking information epidemics in blogspace. In IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence. IEEE Computer Society, Compiegne University of Technology, France. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Aho, A., Hopcroft, J., and Ullman, J. 1974. Design & Analysis of Computer Algorithms. Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anderson, R. M. and May, R. M. 1991. Infectious Diseases of Humans. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Aral, S., Muchnik, L., and Sundararajan, A. 2009. Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 51, 21544--21549.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aral, S. and Walker, D. 2011. Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer influence in networks. Management Science. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bakshy, E., Hofman, J., Mason, W., and Watts, D. 2011. Everyone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. Association of Computing Machinery, 65--74. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bakshy, E., Karrer, B., and Adamic, L. 2009. Social influence and the diffusion of user-created content. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM conference on Electronic commerce. Association of Computing Machinery, 325--334. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bass, F. M. 1969. A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science 15, 5, 215--227.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Coleman, J., Katz, E., and Menzel, H. 1957. The diffusion of an innovation among physicians. Sociometry 20, 4, 253--270.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dean, J. and Ghemawat, S. 2008. Mapreduce: Simplified data processing on large clusters. Communications of the ACM 51, 1, 107--113. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dodds, P. and Watts, D. 2005. A generalized model of social and biological contagion. Journal of Theoretical Biology 232, 4, 587--604.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Domingos, P., Mika, P., Golbeck, J., Ding, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A., Nowak, A., and Vallacher, R. 2005. Social networks applied. IEEE Intelligent Systems 20, 80--93. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Domingos, P. and Richardson, M. 2001. Mining the network value of customers. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 57--66. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ferguson, T. S. 1989. Who solved the secretary problem? Statistical Science, 282--289.Google Scholar
- Gladwell, M. 2000. The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
- Goel, S., Mason, W., and Watts, D. J. 2010. Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99, 4, 611--621.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Goel, S. and Salganik, M. 2010. Assessing respondent-driven sampling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 15, 6743.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Granovetter, M. 1978. Threshold models of collective behavior1. American Journal of Sociology 83, 6, 1420--1443.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Iyengar, R., Van den Bulte, C., and Valente, T. W. 2010. Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. 1955. Personal influence: the part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Free Press.Google Scholar
- Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J., and Tardos, E. 2003. Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In 9th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Association of Computing Machinery. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kitsak, M., Gallos, L., Havlin, S., Liljeros, F., Muchnik, L., Stanley, H., and Makse, H. 2010. Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks . Nature Physics 11, 888--893.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Le Bon, G. 1896. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Leskovec, J., Adamic, L., and Huberman, B. 2007. The dynamics of viral marketing. ACM Transactions on the Web 1, 1, 5. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leskovec, J., Singh, A., and Kleinberg, J. 2006. Patterns of influence in a recommendation network. Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 380--389. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Liben-Nowell, D. and Kleinberg, J. 2008. Tracing information flow on a global scale using internet chain-letter data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 12, 4633.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Liu, Y., Shafton, P., Shamma, D., and Yang, J. 2007. Zync: the design of synchronized video sharing. In Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Designing for User eXperiences. ACM, 1--8. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lopez-Pintado, D. and Watts, D. 2008. Social influence, binary decisions and collective dynamics. Rationality and Society 20, 4, 399--443.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mackay, C. 1841. Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds. Richard Bentley.Google Scholar
- Malekinejad, M., Johnston, L., Kendall, C., Kerr, L., Rifkin, M., and Rutherford, G. 2008. Using respondent-driven sampling methodology for hiv biological and behavioral surveillance in international settings: a systematic review. AIDS and Behavior 12, 105--130.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mills, C., Robins, J., and Lipsitch, M. 2002. Transmissibility of 1918 pandemic influenza. J. Am. Med. Assoc 287, 2236--2252.Google Scholar
- Moore, C. and Newman, M. E. J. 2000. Epidemics and percolation in small-world networks. Physical Review E 61, 5, 5678--5682.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rogers, E. 1962. Diffusion of innovations. Free Press.Google Scholar
- Salganik, M. J. and Heckathorn, D. D. 2004. Sampling and estimation in hidden populations using respondent-driven sampling. Sociological Methodology 34, 193--239.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shalizi, C. R. and Thomas, A. C. 2011. Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociological Methods and Research 40, 211--239.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shamma, D. and Liu, Y. 2009. Zync with me: Synchronized sharing of video through instant messaging. Social Interactive Television: Immersive Shared Experiences and Perspectives.Google Scholar
- Smith, G. S. 2004. Recognizing and preparing loss estimates from cyber-attacks. Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective 12, 6, 46--57.Google Scholar
- Sun, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., and Lento, T. 2009. Gesundheit! modeling contagion through facebook news feed. In Proc. of International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.Google Scholar
- Taubenberger, J. and Morens, D. 2006. 1918 influenza: the mother of all pandemics. Rev Biomed 17, 69--79.Google Scholar
- Van den Bulte, C. and Lilien, G. 2001. Medical innovation revisited: Social contagion versus marketing effort. American Journal of Sociology, 1409--1435.Google Scholar
- Watts, D. J. 2002. A simple model of information cascades on random networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, U.S.A. 99, 5766--5771.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Watts, D. J. and Peretti, J. 2007. Viral marketing for the real world. Harvard Business Review May, 22--23.Google Scholar
- Young, H. P. 2009. Innovation diffusion in heterogeneous populations: Contagion, social influence, and social learning. American Economic Review 99, 5, 1899--1924.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- The structure of online diffusion networks
Recommendations
Complex contagion and the weakness of long ties in social networks: revisited
EC '13: Proceedings of the fourteenth ACM conference on Electronic commerceDiseases, information and rumors could spread fast in social networks exhibiting the small world property. In the diffusion of these 'simple contagions', which can spread through a single contact, a small network diameter and the existence of weak ties ...
Complex contagion and the weakness of long ties in social networks: revisited
EC '13: Proceedings of the fourteenth ACM conference on Electronic commerceDiseases, information and rumors could spread fast in social networks exhibiting the small world property. In the diffusion of these 'simple contagions', which can spread through a single contact, a small network diameter and the existence of weak ties ...
Diffusion in Networks with Overlapping Community Structure
ICDMW '11: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining WorkshopsIn this work we study diffusion in networks with community structure. We first replicate and extend work on networks with non-overlapping community structure. We then study diffusion on network models that have overlapping community structure. We study ...
Comments