All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

PLOS ONE  2014 

Homophily and the Speed of Social Mobilization: The Effect of Acquired and Ascribed Traits

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095140

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Large-scale mobilization of individuals across social networks is becoming increasingly prevalent in society. However, little is known about what affects the speed of social mobilization. Here we use a framed field experiment to identify and measure properties of individuals and their relationships that predict mobilization speed. We ran a global social mobilization contest and recorded personal traits of the participants and those they recruited. We studied the effects of ascribed traits (gender, age) and acquired traits (geography, and information source) on the speed of mobilization. We found that homophily, a preference for interacting with other individuals with similar traits, had a mixed role in social mobilization. Homophily was present for acquired traits, in which mobilization speed was faster when the recuiter and recruit had the same trait compared to different traits. In contrast, we did not find support for homophily for the ascribed traits. Instead, those traits had other, non-homophily effects: Females mobilized other females faster than males mobilized other males. Younger recruiters mobilized others faster, and older recruits mobilized slower. Recruits also mobilized faster when they first heard about the contest directly from the contest organization, and decreased in speed when hearing from less personal source types (e.g. family vs. media). These findings show that social mobilization includes dynamics that are unlike other, more passive forms of social activity propagation. These findings suggest relevant factors for engineering social mobilization tasks for increased speed.

References

[1]  Deutsch KW (1961) Social Mobilization and Political Development. Am Polit Sci Rev 55: 493–514. doi: 10.2307/1952679
[2]  Bond RM, Fariss CJ, Jones JJ, Kramer ADI, Marlow C, et al. (2012) A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489: 295–298 doi:10.1038/nature11421.
[3]  Polletta F (2004) Freedom Is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American Social Movements. University of Chicago Press.
[4]  McAdam D, Tarrow S, Tilly C (2001) Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge University Press.
[5]  Polletta F, Jasper JM (2001) Collective Identity and Social Movements. Annu Rev Psychol 27: 283–305. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.283
[6]  McAdam D, McCarthy JD, Zald MN (1996) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge University Press.
[7]  Krakow G (2005) Ham radio operators to the rescue after Katrina. NBC News.
[8]  Hellerstein JM, Tennenhouse DL (2011) Searching for Jim Gray: A Technical overview. Commun ACM 54: 77–87 doi:10.1145/1965724.
[9]  Afuah A, Tucci CL (2012) Crowdsourcing as a Solution to Distant Search. Acad Manag Rev 37: 355–375. doi: 10.5465/amr.2010.0146
[10]  Coughlan AT, Grayson K (1998) Network marketing organizations: Compensation plans, retail network growth, and profitability. Int J Res Mark 15: 401–426. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8116(98)00014-7
[11]  Biyalogorsky E, Gerstner E, Libai B (2001) Customer Referral Management: Optimal Reward Programs. Mark Sci 20: 82–95 doi:10.1287/mksc.20.1.82.10195.
[12]  Pickard G, Pan W, Rahwan I, Cebrian M, Crane R, et al. (2011) Time-critical social mobilization. Science 334: 509–512 doi:10.1126/science.1205869.
[13]  Rutherford A, Cebrian M, Dsouza S, Moro E, Pentland A, et al. (2013) Limits of social mobilization. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110: 6281–6286 doi:10.1073/pnas.1216338110.
[14]  Rutherford A, Cebrian M, Rahwan I, Dsouza S, McInerney J, et al. (2013) Targeted social mobilization in a global manhunt. PLoS One 8: e74628 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074628.
[15]  Kleinberg JM (2000) Navigation in a small world. Nature 406: 845 doi:10.1038/35022643.
[16]  Watts DJ, Dodds PS, Newman MEJ (2002) Identity and Search in Social Networks. Science 296: 1302–1305 doi:10.1126/science.1070120.
[17]  Dodds PS, Muhamad R, Watts DJ (2003) An experimental study of search in global social networks. Science 301: 827–829 doi:10.1126/science.1081058.
[18]  Centola D (2010) The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329: 1194–1197 doi:10.1126/science.1185231.
[19]  Goel S, Watts DJ, Goldstein DG (2012) The Structure of Online Diffusion Networks. Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. Vol. 1 . pp.623–638.
[20]  Pajevic S, Plenz D (2012) The organization of strong links in complex networks. Nat Phys 8: 429–436 doi:10.1038/nphys2257.
[21]  Onnela J-P, Saram?ki J, Hyv?nen J, Szabó G, Lazer D, et al. (2007) Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104: 7332–7336 doi:10.1073/pnas.0610245104.
[22]  McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27: 415–444. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
[23]  Phillips N, Tracey P, Karra N (2013) Building entrepreneurial tie portfolios through strategic homophily: The role of narrative identity work in venture creation and early growth. J Bus Ventur 28: 134–150 doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.12.002.
[24]  Centola D (2011) An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. Science 334: 1269–1272 doi:10.1126/science.1207055.
[25]  Iribarren JL, Moro E (2011) Affinity Paths and Information Diffusion in Social Networks. Soc Networks 33: 134–142. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2010.11.003
[26]  Iribarren JL, Moro E (2009) Impact of Human Activity Patterns on the Dynamics of Information Diffusion. Phys Rev Lett 103 . doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.038702
[27]  Malmgrem RD, Stouffer DB, Motter AE, Amaral LAN (2008) A Poissonian explanation for heavy tails in e-mail communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105: 18153–18158 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.591.
[28]  Aral S, Walker D (2012) Identifying Influential and Susceptible Members of Social Networks. Science 337: 337–341 doi:10.1126/science.1215842.
[29]  Katona Z, Zubcsek PP, Sarvary M (2011) Network Effects and Personal Influences: The Diffusion of an Online Social Network. J Mark Res 48: 425–443. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.48.3.425
[30]  Lewis K, Gonzalez M, Kaufman J (2012) Social selection and peer influence in an online social network. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109: 68–72 doi:10.1073/pnas.1109739109.
[31]  Clauset A, Shalizi CR, Newman MEJ (2009) Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev 51..
[32]  Alstott J, Bullmore E, Plenz D (2014) powerlaw: a Python package for analysis of heavy-tailed distributions. PLoS One 9: e85777. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085777
[33]  Simpson EH (1951) The Interpretation of Interaction in Contingency Tables. J R Stat Soc Ser B 13: 238–241.
[34]  Goltz HH, Smith ML (2010) Yule-Simpson's Paradox in Research. Pract Assessment, Res Eval 15..
[35]  Harrison GW, List JA (2004) Field Experiments. J Econ Lit 42: 1009–1055. doi: 10.1257/0022051043004577
[36]  Langley Castle Hotel (2011) 14th Century Castle offers £11,000 Anniversary Giveaway. Available: http://web.mit.edu/smadnick/www/Langley/?LangleyKnightPressRelease-master.pdf. Accessed 2014 March 26
[37]  Langley Castle Hotel (2011) The Langley Knights. YouTube. Available: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Z7NULcu?rk. Accessed 2014 March 26
[38]  Fox J (2002) Cox Proportional-Hazards Regression for Survival Data. An R and Splus Companion to Applied Regression. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus