A Coevolution Model of Network Structure and User Behavior: The Case of Content Generation in Online Social Networks

References

• Airoldi EM, Bai X, Carley KM (2011) Network sampling and classification: An investigation of network model representations. Decision Support Systems 51(3):506–518.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J (2007) Giving gifts to groups: How altruism depends on the number of recipients. J. Public Econom. 91(9):1731–1749.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ansari A, Koenigsberg O, Stahl F (2011) Modeling multiple relationships in social networks. J. Marketing Res. 48(4):713–728.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aral S, Walker D (2014) Tie strength, embeddedness, and social influence: A large-scale networked experiment. Management Sci. 60(6):1352–1370.Link, Google Scholar
• Aral S, Muchnik L, Sundararajan A (2009) Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(51):21544–21549.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aral S, Muchnik L, Sundararajan A (2013) Engineering social contagions: Optimal network seeding in the presence of homophily. Network Sci. 1(2):125–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Asch S (1951) Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Guetzkow H, ed. Groups, Leadership and Men: Research in Human Relations (Carnegie Press, Oxford, UK), 222–236.Google Scholar
• Azari SH, Airoldi EM (2012) Graphlet decomposition of a weighted network. Gordon G, Dunson D, Dudík M, eds. Proc. 15th Internat. Conf. Artificial Intelligence Statistics, April 11–13, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Vol. 22, 54–63.Google Scholar
• Backstrom L, Huttenlocher D, Kleinberg J, Lan X (2006) Group formation in large social networks. Proc. 12th ACM SIGKDD Internat. Conf. Knowledge Discovery Data Mining (ACM Press, New York), 44–54.Google Scholar
• Bai X, Padman R, Airoldi EM (2005) On learning parsimonious models for extracting consumer opinions. Proc. 38th Annual Hawaii Internat. Conf. System Sciences, Vol. 9 (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC), 1530–1605.Google Scholar
• Bampo M, Ewing MT, Mather DR, Stewart D, Wallace M (2008) The effects of the social structure of digital networks on viral marketing performance. Inform. Systems Res. 19(3):273–290.Link, Google Scholar
• Binder J, Howes A, Sutcliffe A (2009) The problem of conflicting social spheres. Proc. 27th Internat. Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (ACM Press, New York), 965–974.Google Scholar
• Borgatti SP, Foster PC (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. J. Management 29(6):991–1013.Google Scholar
• Bramoullé Y, Djebbari H, Fortin B (2009) Identification of peer effects through social networks. J. Econometrics 150(1):41–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Braun M, Bonfrer A (2011) Scalable inference of customer similarities from interactions data using Dirichlet processes. Marketing Sci. 30(3):513–531.Link, Google Scholar
• Chevalier JA, Mayzlin D (2006) The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. J. Marketing Res. 43(3):345–354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christakis NA, Fowler JH (2008) The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. New England J. Medicine 358(21):2249–2258.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crandall D, Cosley D, Huttenlocher D, Kleinberg J, Suri S (2008) Feedback effects between similarity and social influence in online communities. Proc. 14th ACM SIGKDD Internat. Conf. Knowledge Discovery Data Mining (ACM Press, New York),160–168.Google Scholar
• Davin JP, Davin JP, Gupta S, Piskorski MJ (2014) Separating homophily and peer influence with latent space. Working Paper 14-053, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• de Bunt GG, Van Duijn MAJ, Snijders TAB (1999) Friendship networks through time: An actor-oriented dynamic statistical network model. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 5(2):167–192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Matos MG, Ferreira P, Krackhardt D (2014) Peer influence in the diffusion of iPhone 3G over a large social network. MIS Quart. 38(4):1103–1133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dewan S, Ho YJ, Ramaprasad J (2017) Popularity or proximity: Characterizing the nature of social influence in an online music community. Inform. Systems Res. 28(1):117–136.Link, Google Scholar
• Doreian P (1989) Network autocorrelation models: Problems and prospects. Griffith DA, ed. Spatial Statistics: Past, Present, and Future (Michigan Document Services, Ann Arbor), 369–389.Google Scholar
• Dunbar RIM (1992) Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. J. Human Evolution 22(6):469–493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Durkheim E (1884) The Division of Labor in Society (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Emirbayer M, Goodwin J (1994) Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. Amer. J. Sociol. 99(6):1411–1454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ennett ST, Bauman KE (1994) The contribution of influence and selection to adolescent peer group homogeneity: The case of adolescent cigarette smoking. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 67(4):653–663.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fararo TJ, Sunshine MH (1964) A study of a biased friendship net. Technical report, Youth Development Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.Google Scholar
• Fogg BJ, Eckles D (2007) The behavior chain for online participation: How successful web services structure persuasion. Proc. Second Internat. Conf. Persuasive Tech., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4744 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin), 199–209.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedkin NE (2001) Norm formation in social influence networks. Soc. Networks 23(3):167–189.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goh KY, Heng CS, Lin Z (2013) Social media brand community and consumer behavior: Quantifying the relative impact of user- and marketer-generated content. Inform. Systems Res. 24(1):88–107.Link, Google Scholar
• Goldfarb A, Tucker CE (2011) Privacy regulation and online advertising. Management Sci. 57(1):57–71.Link, Google Scholar
• Goldsmith-Pinkham P, Imbens GW (2013) Social networks and the identification of peer effects. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 31(3):253–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenan CC (2015) Diffusion of innovations in dynamic networks. J. Roy. Statist. Soc.: Ser. A (Statist. Soc.) 178(1):147–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gu B, Konana P, Raghunathan R, Chen HM (2014) Research note—The allure of homophily in social media: Evidence from investor responses on virtual communities. Inform. Systems Res. 25(3):604–617.Link, Google Scholar
• Han QC, Xu KS, Airoldi EM (2015) Consistent estimation of dynamic and multi-layer networks. Bach F, Blei D, eds. Proc. 32nd Internat. Conf. Machine Learning, July 6–11, Lille, France, Vol. 37, 1511–1520.Google Scholar
• Hargittai E (2007) Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites. J. Comput.-Mediated Comm. 13(1):276–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hof RD (2011) Advertisers flock to social networks. MIT Tech. Rev. (June 21), http://www.technologyreview.com/article/424409/advertisers-flock-to-social-networks/.Google Scholar
• Hoff PD, Raftery AE, Handcock MS (2002) Latent space approaches to social network analysis. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 97(460):1090–1098.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hollingshead AdB (1949) Elmtown’s Youth: The Impact of Social Classes on Adolescents (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Homans GC (1961) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (Harcourt Brace & World, New York).Google Scholar
• Kirke DM (2004) Chain reactions in adolescents’ cigarette, alcohol and drug use: Similarity through peer influence or the patterning of ties in peer networks? Soc. Networks 26(1):3–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kossinets G, Watts DJ (2006) Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science 311(5757):88–90.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krackhardt D, Stern RN (1988) Informal networks and organizational crises: An experimental simulation. Soc. Psych. Quart. 51(2):123–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazarsfeld PF, Merton RK, others (1954) Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. Freedom Control Modern Soc. 18(1):18–66.Google Scholar
• Lewis K, Gonzalez M, Kaufman J (2012) Social selection and peer influence in an online social network. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109(1):68–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Livingstone S (2008) Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media Soc. 10(3):393–411.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lu Y, Jerath K, Singh PV (2013) The emergence of opinion leaders in a networked online community: A dyadic model with time dynamics and a heuristic for fast estimation. Management Sci. 59(8):1783–1799.Link, Google Scholar
• Macy MW, Kitts JA, Flache A, Benard S (2003) Polarization in dynamic networks: A Hopfield model of emergent structure. Breiger R, Carley K, Pattison P, eds. Dynamic Social Network Modeling and Analysis (National Academies Press, Washington, DC), 162–173.Google Scholar
• Maddala GS (1986) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Mayer TF (1984) Parties and networks: Stochastic models for relationship networks. J. Math. Sociol. 10(1):51–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Rev. Sociol. 27(1):415–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nahon K, Hemsley J (2014) Homophily in the guise of cross-linking political blogs and content. Amer. Behavioral Scientist 58(10):1294–1313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newcomb TM (1962) Student peer-group influence. Sanford N, ed. The American College: A Psychological and Social Interpretation of the Higher Learning (John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ), 469–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newman M (2010) Networks: An Introduction (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oetting ER, Donnermeyer JF (1998) Primary socialization theory: The etiology of drug use and deviance. I. Substance Use Misuse 33(4):995–1026.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Olson M (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Park J, Barabási AL (2007) Distribution of node characteristics in complex networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104(46):17916–17920.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pearson M, West P (2003) Drifting smoke rings. Connections 25(2):59–76.Google Scholar
• Phan TQ, Airoldi EM (2015) A natural experiment of social network formation and dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112(21):6595–6600.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reingen PHet al. (1984) Brand congruence in interpersonal relations: A social network analysis. J. Consumer Res. 11(3):771–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ripley RM, Snijders TAB, Boda Z, Vörös A, Preciado P (2018) Manual for RSiena. Department of Statistics, Nuffield College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
• Robbins H, Monro S (1951) A stochastic approximation method. Ann. Math. Statist. 22(3):400–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schweinberger M, Snijders TAB (2007) Markov models for digraph panel data: Monte Carlo-based derivative estimation. Comput. Statist. Data Anal. 51(9):4465–4483.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shalizi CR, Thomas AC (2011) Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociol. Methods Res. 40(2):211–239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sinclaire JK, Vogus CE (2011) Adoption of social networking sites: An exploratory adaptive structuration perspective for global organizations. Inform. Tech. Management 12(4):293–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Singh PV, Phelps C (2013) Networks, social influence, and the choice among competing innovations? Insights from open source software licenses networks, social influence, and the choice among competing innovations? Insights from open source software licenses. Management Sci. 24(3):539–560.Google Scholar
• Singh PV, Tan Y, Mookerjee V (2011) Network effects: The influence of structural capital on open source project success. MIS Quart. 35(4):813–829.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Singla P, Richardson M (2008) Yes, there is a correlation—From social networks to personal behavior on the web. Proc. 17th Internat. Conf. World Wide Web (ACM Press, New York), 655–664.Google Scholar
• Snijders T, Steglich C, Schweinberger M (2007) Modeling the coevolution of networks and behavior. van Montfort K, Oud H, Satorra A, eds. Longitudinal Models in the Behavioral and Related Sciences (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ), 41–71.Google Scholar
• Snijders TAB (1996) Stochastic actor-oriented models for network change. J. Math. Sociol. 21(1–2):149–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snijders TAB (2001) The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociol. Methodology 31(1):361–395.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steglich C, Snijders TAB, Pearson M (2010) Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Sociol. Methodology 40(1):329–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steinfield C, Ellison NB, Lampe C (2008) Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. J. Appl. Developmental Psych. 29(6):434–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steinfield C, DiMicco JM, Ellison NB, Lampe C (2009) Bowling online. Proc. Fourth Internat. Conf. Communities Tech. (ACM Press, New York), 245–254.Google Scholar
• Stokman FN, Doreian P, eds. (1997) Evolution of social networks: Processes and principles. Evolution of Social Networks (Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam), 233–250.Google Scholar
• Tucker C (2016) Social advertising: How advertising that explicitly promotes social influence can backfire. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Valkenburg PM, Peter J, Schouten AP (2006) Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. Cyberpsych. Behav. 9(5):584–90.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Meister DB, Gray PH (2013) Social influence and knowledge management systems use: Evidence from panel data. MIS Quart. 37(1):299–313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wasserman S (1977) Stochastic models for directed graphs. PhD dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Wasserman S (1980a) A stochastic model for directed graphs with transition rates determined by reciprocity. Sociol. Methodology 11:392–412.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wasserman S (1980b) Analyzing social networks as stochastic processes. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 75(370):280–294.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Waters RD, Burnett E, Lamm A, Lucas J (2009) Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Rev. 35(2):102–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wellman B, Haase AQ, Witte J, Hampton K (2001) Does the internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. Amer. Behavioral Scientist 45(3):436–455.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang J, Han QC, Airoldi EM (2013) Nonparametric estimation and testing of exchangeable graph models. Kaski S, Corander J, eds. Proc. 17th Internat. Conf. Artificial Intelligence Statistics, April 22–25, Reykjavik, Iceland, Vol. 33, 1060–1067.Google Scholar
• Zeng X, Wei L (2013) Social ties and user content generation: Evidence from Flickr. Inform. Systems Res. 24(1):71–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Zhang X(M), Zhu F (2011) Group size and incentives to contribute: A natural experiment at Chinese Wikipedia. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(4):1601–1615.Crossref, Google Scholar