Many online social networks thrive on automatic sharing of friends' activities to a user through activity feeds, which may influence the user's next actions. However, identifying such social influence is tricky because these activities are simultaneously impacted by influence and homophily. We propose a statistical procedure that uses commonly available network and observational data about people's actions to estimate the extent of copy-influence---mimicking others' actions that appear in a feed. We assume that non-friends don't influence users; thus, comparing how a user's activity correlates with friends versus non-friends who have similar preferences can help tease out the effect of copy-influence. Experiments on datasets from multiple social networks show that estimates that don't account for homophily overestimate copy-influence by varying, often large amounts. Further, copy-influence estimates fall below 1 of total actions in all networks: most people, and almost all actions, are not affected by the feed. Our results question common perceptions around the extent of copy-influence in online social networks and suggest improvements to diffusion and recommendation models.
Outside of controlled experiments around information consumption in real social networks---which may be infeasible, costly, or potentially unethical---identification of influence is not straightforward. Naive measures such as simply counting the number of common actions between friends within a given time period likely overestimate influence @cite_25 @cite_40 @cite_24 , as any observed data is simultaneously affected by both influence and homophily. In addition, people may be to the same item through forces outside of the social network @cite_6 . For example, two friends may like the same item after watching an advertisement for it. Such external exposure also creates confounds for estimating influence. In line with Shalizi and Thomas' argument for the need for assumptions about mechanism @cite_35 , work on estimating influence from observational data generally makes assumptions about the nature of influence and or homophily, then uses statistical or computational procedures on those data to simulate contexts where those assumptions don't hold.
@cite_35 @cite_6 @cite_24 @cite_40 @cite_25
2149084727 2128891547 2046989790 1573308170 1967579779
The authors consider processes on social networks that can potentially involve three factors: homophily, or the formation of social ties due to matching individual traits; social contagion, also known as social influence; and the causal effect of an individual’s covariates on his or her behavior or other measurable responses. The authors show that generically, all of these are confounded with each other. Distinguishing them from one another requires strong assumptions on the parametrization of the social process or on the adequacy of the covariates used (or both). In particular the authors demonstrate, with simple examples, that asymmetries in regression coefficients cannot identify causal effects and that very simple models of imitation (a form of social contagion) can produce substantial correlations between an individual’s enduring traits and his or her choices, even when there is no intrinsic affinity between them. The authors also suggest some possible constructive responses to these results. A fundamental open question in the analysis of social networks is to understand the interplay between similarity and social ties. People are similar to their neighbors in a social network for two distinct reasons: first, they grow to resemble their current friends due to social influence; and second, they tend to form new links to others who are already like them, a process often termed selection by sociologists. While both factors are present in everyday social processes, they are in tension: social influence can push systems toward uniformity of behavior, while selection can lead to fragmentation. As such, it is important to understand the relative effects of these forces, and this has been a challenge due to the difficulty of isolating and quantifying them in real settings. We develop techniques for identifying and modeling the interactions between social influence and selection, using data from online communities where both social interaction and changes in behavior over time can be measured. We find clear feedback effects between the two factors, with rising similarity between two individuals serving, in aggregate, as an indicator of future interaction -- but with similarity then continuing to increase steadily, although at a slower rate, for long periods after initial interactions. We also consider the relative value of similarity and social influence in modeling future behavior. For instance, to predict the activities that an individual is likely to do next, is it more useful to know the current activities of their friends, or of the people most similar to them? Conformity is a type of social influence involving a change in opinion or behavior in order to fit in with a group. Employing several social networks as the source for our experimental data, we study how the effect of conformity plays a role in changing users' online behavior. We formally define several major types of conformity in individual, peer, and group levels. We propose Confluence model to formalize the effects of social conformity into a probabilistic model. Confluence can distinguish and quantify the effects of the different types of conformities. To scale up to large social networks, we propose a distributed learning method that can construct the Confluence model efficiently with near-linear speedup. Our experimental results on four different types of large social networks, i.e., Flickr, Gowalla, Weibo and Co-Author, verify the existence of the conformity phenomena. Leveraging the conformity information, Confluence can accurately predict actions of users. Our experiments show that Confluence significantly improves the prediction accuracy by up to 5-10 compared with several alternative methods. Who are the influential people in an online social network? The answer to this question depends not only on the structure of the network, but also on details of the dynamic processes occurring on it. We classify these processes as conservative and non-conservative. A random walk on a network is an example of a conservative dynamic process, while information spread is non-conservative. The influence models used to rank network nodes can be similarly classified, depending on the dynamic process they implicitly emulate. We claim that in order to correctly rank network nodes, the influence model has to match the details of the dynamic process. We study a real-world network on the social news aggregator Digg, which allows users to post and vote for news stories. We empirically define influence as the number of in-network votes a user's post generates. This influence measure, and the resulting ranking, arises entirely from the dynamics of voting on Digg, which represents non-conservative information flow. We then compare predictions of different influence models with this empirical estimate of influence. The results show that non-conservative models are better able to predict influential users on Digg. We find that normalized alpha-centrality metric turns out to be one of the best predictors of influence. We also present a simple algorithm for computing this metric and the associated mathematical formulation and analytical proofs. In this paper we investigate the attributes and relative influence of 1.6M Twitter users by tracking 74 million diffusion events that took place on the Twitter follower graph over a two month interval in 2009. Unsurprisingly, we find that the largest cascades tend to be generated by users who have been influential in the past and who have a large number of followers. We also find that URLs that were rated more interesting and or elicited more positive feelings by workers on Mechanical Turk were more likely to spread. In spite of these intuitive results, however, we find that predictions of which particular user or URL will generate large cascades are relatively unreliable. We conclude, therefore, that word-of-mouth diffusion can only be harnessed reliably by targeting large numbers of potential influencers, thereby capturing average effects. Finally, we consider a family of hypothetical marketing strategies, defined by the relative cost of identifying versus compensating potential "influencers." We find that although under some circumstances, the most influential users are also the most cost-effective, under a wide range of plausible assumptions the most cost-effective performance can be realized using "ordinary influencers"---individuals who exert average or even less-than-average influence.