130 likes | 193 Views
This comprehensive study delves into the impact of network structures on diffusion and the significance of strong and weak ties in social interactions, shedding light on factors influencing information spreading and community cohesion.
E N D
Today’s topics Strength of Weak Ties Next Topic How does Google rank webpages in search? Acknowledgements James Moody, Alan Kirman, DejanVinkovic
Factors influencing diffusion • Network structure (unweighted) • density • degree distribution • clustering • connected components • community structure • Strength of ties (weighted) • frequency of communication • strength of influence • Spreading agent • attractiveness and specificity of information
How does strength of a tie influence diffusion? • M. S. Granovetter: The Strength of Weak Ties, AJS, 1973: • Finding a job through a contact that one saw • frequently (2+ times/week) 16.7% • occasionally (more than once a year but < 2x week) 55.6% • rarely 27.8% • But… length of path is short • contact directly works for/is the employer • or is connected directly to employer
Strength of Weak Ties • Why do leads for new jobs come from weak contacts? • What binds communities together? • How do ties afffect access to resources? • What are the social implications?
Strong ties • A strong tie • frequent contact • affinity • many mutual contacts • Less likely to be a bridge (or a local bridge) “forbidden triad”: strong ties are likely to “close” Source: Granovetter, M. (1973). "The Strength of Weak Ties", American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, Issue 6, May 1973, pp. 1360-1380.
Strength of ties on Facebook • Why are some ties more common than others?
Strength of ties on twitter Study by Wu, Golder & Huberman
Whatindicates cohesion? • Mutuality of ties • everybody in the group knows everybody else • Closeness or reachability of subgroup members • individuals are separated by at most n hops • Frequency of ties • Among members • everybody in the group has links to at least k others • Among subgroup members compared to nonmembers • Why? • Discover communities of practice • Measure isolation of groups • Threshold processes: • I will adopt an innovation if some number of my contacts do • I will vote for a measure if a fraction of my contacts do
Columbia Small World Experiment • Identical protocol to Travers and Milgram, but conducted via the Internet • 60,000 participants from 170 countries attempting to reach 18 different targets • Results • Median “true” chain length 5 < L < 7 • Successful chains disproportionately used • professional ties (34% vs. 13%) • ties originating at work/college • target's work (65% vs. 40%) • weak ties (Granovetter) • . . . and disproportionately avoided • hubs (8% vs. 1%) (+ no evidence of funnels) • family/friendship ties (60% vs. 83%)