Print

Print


*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

The following study found that people were more likely to join Facebook 
when invited from people who are not connected to each other (possibly 
representing different groups of friends, colleagues, etc...).

Ugander, J., Backstrom, L., Marlow, C., & Kleinberg, J. (2012). 
Structural diversity in social contagion. Proceedings of the National 
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(16), 5962–5966. 
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1116502109

Recently, I found something similar for the contagion of political 
campaign donations: donation is more likely when exposed to earlier 
donors from different groups, rather than from equally many donors from 
a single group. So, exposure to information from multiple sources has a 
larger effect when the sources are independent (in terms of network 
relations).

Traag, V. A. (2016). Complex Contagion of Campaign Donations. 
http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.07679

Best,

Vincent Traag

On 14/03/16 17:17, Marina Kogan wrote:
> Also, the literature on complex contagion might be useful. Here is the 
> seminal article, but there is a lot of work building off of it.
>
> http://snap.stanford.edu/class/cs224w-readings/centola10behavior.pdf
>
> Best,
> Marina
>
>> On Mar 14, 2016, at 7:12 AM, Ingmar Weber <[log in to unmask] 
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe our ICWSM’14 and its references is relevant. It focuses on the 
>> importance of the social relationship in fact-checking, i.e. when 
>> being told “you’re wrong”.
>> “Get Back! You Don’t Know Me Like That: The Social Mediation of Fact 
>> Checking Interventions in Twitter Conversations”. ICWSM 2014: 187-196.
>> Aniko Hannak, Drew Margolin, Brian Keegan, Ingmar Weber
>> http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM14/paper/view/8115
>> Abstract:
>> The prevalence of misinformation within social media and online 
>> communities can undermine public security and distract attention from 
>> important issues. Fact-checking interventions, in which users cite 
>> fact-checking websites such asSnopes.com 
>> <http://snopes.com/>andFactCheck.org <http://factcheck.org/>, are a 
>> strategy users can employ to refute false claims made by their peers. 
>> While laboratory research suggests such interventions are not 
>> effective in persuading people to abandon false ideas, little work 
>> considers how such interventions are actually deployed in real-world 
>> conversations. Using approximately 1,600 interventions observed on 
>> Twitter between 2012 and 2013, we examine the contexts and 
>> consequences of fact-checking interventions. We focus in particular 
>> on the social relationship between the individual who issues the 
>> fact-check and the individual whose facts are challenged. Our results 
>> indicate that though fact-checking interventions are most commonly 
>> issued by strangers, they are more likely to draw user attention and 
>> responses when they come from friends. Finally, we discuss 
>> implications for designing more effective interventions against 
>> misinformation.
>> Best,
>> Ingmar
>> *From:*Social Networks Discussion Forum 
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]*On Behalf Of*Lydia Repke
>> *Sent:*Monday, March 14, 2016 3:34 PM
>> *To:*[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject:*[SOCNET] Literature - strengthening of attitudes when 
>> information is received from different life domains
>> ***** To join INSNA, visithttp://www.insna.org 
>> <http://www.insna.org/>*****
>> Dear SOCNET members,
>> I am currently looking for literature on the strengthening of 
>> attitudes when attitude-relevant messages are heard from individuals 
>> representing different roles (friends, colleagues…).
>> For instance, receiving information on the outgroup only affects me 
>> when this information is passed to me from friends AND co-workers who 
>> belong to my in-group, but it does not affect me when this 
>> information comes only from my friends OR only from my colleagues (or 
>> it does not affect me enough).
>> I would be very grateful for any recommendations of literature on 
>> this topic.
>> Thank you in advance,
>> Lydia
>> ___
>> *Lydia Repke*
>>
>>
>> Behavioral and Experimental Social Sciences  (BESS)
>> Research and Expertise Centre for Survey Methodology (RECSM)
>> Department of Political and Social Sciences
>>
>>
>> Edificio Mercè Rodoreda | Despatx 24.410 | Ramón Trías Fargas 25-27 | 
>> 08005 Barcelona
>>
>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> www.upf.edu/survey <http://www.upf.edu/survey>
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
>> This email and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential 
>> and intended for the use of individual or entity to which it is 
>> addressed. If you have received this email in error, please delete it 
>> immediately and inform the sender. Unless you are the intended 
>> recipient, you may not use, disclose, copy or distribute this email 
>> or any attachments included. The contents of the emails including any 
>> attachments may be subjected to copyrights law, In such case the 
>> contents may not be copied, adapted, distributed or transmitted 
>> without the consent of the copyright owner.
>


_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.