How Does Network Structure Impact Socially Reinforced Diffusion?

References

• 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. Netw. Sci. 1(2):125–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Axelrod R (1997) The dissemination of culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization. J. Conflict Resolut. 41(2):203–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Backstrom, L., D. Huttenlocher, J. Kleinberg and X. Lan (2006) Group formation in large social networks. Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovert and Data 44–54.Google Scholar
• Bakshy E, Eckles D, Yan R, Rosenn I (2012). Social influence in social advertising: evidence from field experiments. Proceedings of the 13th ACM conference on electronic commerce (ACM), 146–161.Google Scholar
• Bakshy E, Hofman JM, Mason WA, Watts DJ (2011) Everyone’s an influencer: quantifying influence on Twitter. Proceedings of the fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, 65–74.Google Scholar
• Bakshy E, Karrer B, Adamic LA (2009). “Social influence and the diffusion of user-created content.” Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, 325–334.Google Scholar
• Bandiera O, Rasul I (2006) Social networks and technology adoption in northern Mozambique. Econ. J. (Lond.) 116(514):869–902.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banerjee A, Chandrasekhar AG, Duflo E, Jackson MO (2013) The diffusion of microfinance. Science 341(6144).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barash V, Cameron C, Macy M (2012) Critical phenomena in complex contagions. Soc. Networks 34(4):451–461.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bass F (1969) A new product growth model for consumer durables. Management Sci. 15(5):215–227.Link, Google Scholar
• Beaman L, BenYishay A, Magruder J, Mobarak AM (2021) Can network theory-based targeting increase technology adoption? Amer. Econom. Rev. 111(6):1918–1943.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brauer F (2008) Compartmental models in epidemiology. Math. Epidemiol. 1945:19–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brehm JW (1956) Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 52(3):384–389.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Broadbent DE (1958) Perception and Communication (Pergamon Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (First Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2004) Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Dobbin F, ed. The New Economic Sociology: A Reader (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ), 325–348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caplin A, Dean M (2014) Revealed preference, rational inattention, and costly information acquisition. NBER Working Paper No. 19876, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Centola D (2010) The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329(5996):1194–1197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Centola D, Macy M (2007) Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. Am. J. Sociol. 113(3):702–734.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Centola D, Willer R, Macy M (2005) The emperor’s dilemma: A computational model of self-enforcing norms. Am. J. Sociol. 110(4):1009–1040.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 94:S95–S120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coleman JS (1994) Foundations of Social Theory (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Conover MD, Ratkiewicz J, Francisco M, Gonçalves B, Menczer F, Flammini A (2011) Political polarization on Twitter. Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.Google Scholar
• Cui PB, Tang M, Wu ZX (2014) Message spreading in networks with stickiness and persistence: Large clustering does not always facilitate large-scale diffusion. Sci. Rep. 4:6303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeGroot MH (1974) Reaching a consensus. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 69(345):118–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dodds PS, Watts DJ (2005) A generalized model of social and biological contagion. J. Theoret. Biol. 232(4):587–604.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Douglas G, Becker J, Centola D (2018) Complex Contagions: A Decade in Review. Complex Spreading Phenomena in Social Systems. (Springer).Google Scholar
• Dyer JH, Nobeoka K (2000) Creating and managing a high‐performance knowledge‐sharing network: the Toyota case. Strategic Management J. 21(3):345–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckles D, Mossel E, Rahimian MA, Sen S (2018). Long ties accelerate noisy threshold-based contagions. Preprint, submitted October 8, https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03579.Google Scholar
• Enke B, Zimmermann F (2019) Correlation Neglect in Belief Formation. Rev. Econ. Stud. 86(1):313–332.Google Scholar
• Fang C, Lee J, Schilling MA (2010) Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 21(3):625–642.Link, Google Scholar
• Fink C, Schmidt A, Barash V, Cameron C, Macy M (2016) Complex contagions and the diffusion of popular Twitter hashtags in Nigeria. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 6(1):1.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galeotti A, Rogers BW (2013) Strategic immunization and group structure. Am. Econ. J. Microecon. 5(2):1–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gargiulo M, Benassi M (1999). The dark side of social capital. Leenders, RTA, Gabbay SM, eds. Corporate Social Capital and Liability (Springer), 298–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghaffarzadegan N, Mostafavi S, Kim H (2022) Sociotechnical interdependencies and tipping-point dynamics in data-intensive services. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 32:5–31.Google Scholar
• Gould RV (1991) Collective action and network structure. Am. J. Sociol. 58:182–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78:1360–1380.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granovetter M (1978) Threshold models of collective behavior. Am. J. Sociol. 83(6):1420–1443.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 91(3):481–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansen MT (1999) The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Adm. Sci. Q. 44(1):82–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hedstrom P (1994) Contagious collectivities: On the spatial diffusion of swedish trade unions. Am. J. Sociol. 99:1157–1179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jarcho JM, Berkman ET, Lieberman MD (2011) The neural basis of rationalization: cognitive dissonance reduction during decision-making. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 6(4):460–467.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karsai M, Iniguez G, Kaski K, Kertész J (2014) Complex contagion process in spreading of online innovation. J. R. Soc. Interface 11(101).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kermack WO, McKendrick AG (1927) A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. 115(772):700–721.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lamberson PJ (2016) Diffusion in networks. Bramoulle Y, Galeotti A, Rogers BW, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Networks (Oxford Academic, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Levin DZ, Cross R (2004) The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Sci. 50(11):1477–1490.Link, Google Scholar
• Lin Z, Zhao X, Ismail KM, Carley KM (2006) Organizational design and restructuring in response to crises: Lessons from computational modeling and real-world cases. Organ. Sci. 17(5):598–618.Link, Google Scholar
• Lu L, Chen D-B, Tao Z (2011) The small world yields the most effective information spreading. New J. Phys. 13:123005–123015.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Macy MW, Skvoretz J (1998) The evolution of trust and cooperation between strangers: A computational model. Am. Sociol. Rev. 63(5):638–660.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mahajan V, Muller E, Bass FM (1990) New product diffusion models in marketing: A review and directions for research. J. Marketing 54(1):1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maslov S, Sneppen K (2002) Specificity and stability in topology of protein networks. Science 296(5569):910–913.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller JH, Page SE (2004) The standing ovation problem.Google Scholar
• Mønsted B, Sapieżyński P, Ferrara E, Lehmann S (2017) Evidence of complex contagion of information in social media: An experiment using Twitter bots. PLoS One. 12(9):e0184148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Montanari A, Saberi A (2010) The spread of innovations in social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 107(47):1–6.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morris S (2000) Contagion. Rev. Econ. Stud. 67(1):57–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newman MEJ (2000) Models of the small world. J. Stat. Phys. 101(3):819–841.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nooteboom B (2000) Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Obstfeld D (2005) Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 50(1):100–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oster E, Thornton R (2012) Determinants of technology adoption: Peer effects in menstrual cup take-up. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 10(6):1263–1293.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parkinson SE (2013) Organizing rebellion: Rethinking high-risk mobilization and social networks in war. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 107(3):418–432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell WW (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Res. Organ. Behav. 12:295–336.Google Scholar
• Rahmandad H, Sterman J (2008) Heterogeneity and network structure in the dynamics of diffusion: Comparing agent-based and differential equation models. Management Sci. 54(5):998–1014.Link, Google Scholar
• Rahmandad H, Sterman J (2022) Quantifying the COVID‐19 endgame: Is a new normal within reach? Syst. Dyn. Rev. 38(4):329–353.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Adm. Sci. Q. 48(2):240–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogers E (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Romero DM, Meeder B, Kleinberg J (2011). Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on Twitter Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web, 695–704.Google Scholar
• Sallee JM (2014) Rational inattention and energy efficiency. J. Law Econom. 57(3):781–820.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sassine J, Rahimian MA, Eckles D (2022) Influence of repetition through limited recall. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 16(1) 863–872.Google Scholar
• Schelling TC (1978) Micromotives and Macrobehavior (WW Norton & Company, New York).Google Scholar
• Schilling MA, Phelps CC (2007) Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Sci. 53(7):1113–1126.Link, Google Scholar
• Schneider W, Shiffrin R (1977) Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: I. Detection, Search, and Attention. Psychol. Rev. 84(1):1–66.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simmel G. (1950) The Sociology of Georg Simmel (Simon & Schuster).Google Scholar
• Simon H (1971) Designing organizations for an information-rich world. Martin G, ed. Computers, Communications, and the Public Interest (John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 37–72.Google Scholar
• Sims CA (2003) Implications of rational inattention. J. Monetary Econom. 50(3): 665–690.Crossref, Google Scholar
• State B, Adamic L (2015) The diffusion of support in an online social movement: Evidence from the adoption of equal-sign profile pictures. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 1741–1750.Google Scholar
• Strang D, Tuma NB (1993) Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in diffusion. Am. J. Sociol. 99(3):614–639.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Takaguchi T, Masuda N, Holme P (2013) Bursty communication patterns facilitate spreading in a threshold-based epidemic dynamics. PLoS One. 8(7):e68629.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Traag VA (2016) Complex contagion of campaign donations. PLoS One. 11(4):e0153539.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turco CJ (2016) The Conversational Firm: Rethinking Bureaucracy in the Age of Social Media (Columbia University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ugander J, Backstrom L, Marlow C, Kleinberg J (2012) Structural diversity in social contagion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109(16):5962–5966.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B (1996) The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. Am. Soc. Rev. 61(4): 674–698.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Adm Sci. Q. 42(1): 35–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B (1999) Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. Am. Soc. Rev. 64: 481–505.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B, Gillespie JJ (2002) Knowledge spillover in corporate financing networks: Embeddedness and the firm’s debt performance. Strategic Management J. 23(7): 595–618.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B, Spiro J (2006) Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. Am. J. Sociol. 111(2): 447–504.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Velleman JD (2000) From self psychology to moral philosophy. Phil. Persp. 14:349–377.Google Scholar
• Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature. 393(June):1–3.Google Scholar
• Wood W, Rünger D (2016) Psychology of habit. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67:289–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zheng M, Lü L, Zhao M (2013) Spreading in online social networks: The role of social reinforcement. Phys. Rev. E 88(1):012818.Crossref, Google Scholar