Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 1203–1218 | Cite as

The Impact of Geographic Distance on Online Social Interactions

  • David LaniadoEmail author
  • Yana Volkovich
  • Salvatore Scellato
  • Cecilia Mascolo
  • Andreas Kaltenbrunner


Online social networking services entice millions of users to spend hours every day interacting with each other. The focus of this work is to explain the effect that geographic distance has on online social interactions and, simultaneously, to understand the interplay between the social characteristics of friendship ties and their spatial properties. We analyze data from a large-scale online social network, Tuenti, with about 10 million active users: our sample includes user profiles, user home locations and online social interactions among Tuenti members. Our findings support the idea that spatial distance constraints whom users interact with, but not the intensity of their social interactions. Furthermore, friendship ties belonging to denser connected groups tend to arise at shorter spatial distances than social ties established between members belonging to different groups. Finally, we show that our findings mostly do not depend on the age of the users, although younger users seem to be slightly more constrained to shorter geographic distances. Augmenting social structure with geographic information adds a new dimension to social network analysis and a large number of theoretical investigations and practical applications can be pursued for online social systems, with many promising outcomes. As the amount of available location-based data is increasing, our findings and results open the door to future possibilities: researchers would benefit from these insights when studying online social services, while developers should be aware of these additional possibilities when building systems and applications related to online social platforms.


Online social networks Geographic properties Online interactions User behavior Age factors 


  1. Adamic, L.A., Buyukkokten, O., & Adar, E. (2003). A social network caught in the web. First Monday, 8(6).Google Scholar
  2. Ahn, Y.Y., Han, S., Kwak, H., Moon, S., & Jeong, H. (2007). Analysis of topological characteristics of huge online social networking services. In Proceedings of WWW’ 07 (pp. 835–844). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Backstrom, L., Sun, E., & Marlow, C. (2010a). Find me if you can: improving geographical prediction with social and spatial proximity. In Proceedings of WWW ’10 (pp. 61–70).Google Scholar
  4. Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C.A., & Adamic, L.A. (2012). The role of social networks in information diffusion. In Proceedings of the 21st world wide web conference (WWW 2012) Lyon.Google Scholar
  5. Barthélemy, M. (2011). Spatial networks. Physics Reports, 499, 1–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bastos, M.T., da Cunha Recuero, R., & da Silva Zago, G. (2014). Taking tweets to the streets: a spatial analysis of the vinegar protests in brazil. First Monday, 19(3).Google Scholar
  7. Bell, M., Charles-Edwards, E., Ueffing, P., Stillwell, J., Kupiszewski, M., & Kupiszewska, D. (2015). Internal migration and development: comparing migration intensities around the world. Population and Development Review, 41(1), 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borge-Holthoefer, J., Rivero, A., García, I., Cauhé, E., Ferrer, A., Ferrer, D., Francos, D., Iniguez, D., Pérez, M.P., Ruiz, G., & et al (2011). Structural and dynamical patterns on online social networks: the spanish may 15th movement as a case study. PloS one, 6(8), e23–883.Google Scholar
  9. Cairncross, F. (2001). The death of distance: how the communications revolution is changing our lives. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The aNNalS of the american academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F. , & Gummadi, K.P. (2010). Measuring user influence in twitter: the million follower fallacy. In Proceedings of ICWSM ’10.
  12. Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conover, M.D., Davis, C., Ferrara, E., McKelvey, K., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2013). The geospatial characteristics of a social movement communication network. PloS one, 8(3), e55–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dindia, K., & Canary, D.J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on maintaining relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 163–173., Scholar
  15. Donath, J. , & Boyd, D. (2004). Public Displays of Connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71–82. Scholar
  16. Dunbar, R. (1998). Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Evans, B.M., & Chi, E.H. (2008). Towards a model of understanding social search. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW 2008) (pp. 485–494). San Diego: ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Expert, P., Evans, T.S., Blondel, V.D., & Lambiotte, R. (2011). Uncovering space-independent communities in spatial networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(19), 7663–7668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Friedkin, N. (1980). A test of structural features of granovetter’s strength of weak ties theory. Social networks, 2(4), 411–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garriss, S., Kaminsky, M. , Freedman, M.J., Karp, B., Mazières, D. , & Yu, H. (2006). RE: Reliable Email. In Proceedings of the third Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI ’06) (pp 297–310).Google Scholar
  21. Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2009). Predicting tie strength with social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp, 211–220). ACM.Google Scholar
  22. Golbeck, J. (2008). Weaving a web of trust. Science, 321(5896), 1640–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldenberg, J., & Levy, M. (2009). Distance Is Not Dead: Social Interaction and Geographical Distance in the Internet Era. arXiv:0906.3202.
  24. Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. Scholar
  25. Hecht, B. , Hong, L. , Suh, B., & Chi, E.H. (2011). Tweets from Justin Bieber’s heart: the dynamics of the location field in user profiles. In Proceedings of CHI ’11.Google Scholar
  26. Horowitz, D., & Kamvar, S.D. (2010). The anatomy of a large-scale social search engine. In Proceedings of the 19th world wide web conference (WWW 2010) ACM, Raleigh North Carolina.Google Scholar
  27. Jiang, J., Wilson, C., Wang, X., Huang, P., Sha, W., Dai, Y., & Zhao, B.Y. (2010). Understanding latent interactions in online social networks. In Proceedings of IMC ’10 (pp. 369–382). New York: ACM. Scholar
  28. Jurgens, D., McCorriston, J., Xu, Y.T. , & Ruths, D. (2015). Geolocation prediction in twitter using social networks: A critical analysis and review of current practice. In Proceedings of the 9th international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM).Google Scholar
  29. Kaltenbrunner, A., Gonzalez, G., Ruiz De Querol, R., & Volkovich, Y. (2011). Comparative analysis of articulated and behavioural social networks in a social news sharing website. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 17(3), 243–266. Scholar
  30. Kaltenbrunner, A., Scellato, S., Volkovich, Y., Laniado, D., Currie, D., Jutemar, E.J., & Mascolo, C. (2012). Far from the eyes, close on the web: impact of geographic distance on online social interactions. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM workshop on online social networks (pp. 19–24). ACM.Google Scholar
  31. Kleinberg, J.M. (2000). Navigation in a small world. Nature, 406(6798), 845. Scholar
  32. Krackhardt, D., & Kilduff, M. (1999). Whether close or far: Social distance effects on perceived balance in friendship networks. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76(5), 770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kumar, R., Novak, J., & Tomkins, A. (2006). Structure and evolution of online social networks. In Proceedings of KDD ’06 (pp. 611–617). New York: ACM. Scholar
  34. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010b). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proceedings of the 19th international World Wide Web conference (pp. 591–600). ACM.Google Scholar
  35. Lambiotte, R., Blondel, V., Dekerchove, C., Huens, E., Prieur, C., Smoreda, Z., & Vandooren, P. (2008). Geographical dispersal of mobile communication networks. Physica A, 387(21), 5317–5325. Scholar
  36. Laniado, D., Volkovich, Y., Kappler, K., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2016). Gender homophily in online dyadic and triadic relationships. EPJ Data Science, 5(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leskovec, J., & Horvitz, E. (2008). Planetary-scale views on a large instant-messaging network. In Proceedings of WWW’ 08.Google Scholar
  38. Liben-Nowell, D., Novak, J., Kumar, R., Raghavan, P., & Tomkins, A. (2005). Geographic routing in social networks. PNAS, 102(33), 11,623–11,628. Scholar
  39. Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., & Staksrud, E. (2013). Risky social networking practices among underage users: lessons for evidence-based policy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(3), 303–320. Scholar
  40. Mascolo, C. (2010). The power of mobile computing in a social era. Internet Computing, 14(6), 76–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McGee, J., Caverlee, J. , & Cheng, Z. (2013). Location prediction in social media based on tie strength. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management (pp 459–468). ACM .Google Scholar
  42. Milgram, S. (1977). The familiar stranger: an aspect of urban anonymity. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  43. Miritello, G., Moro, E., & Lara, R. (2011). Dynamical strength of social ties in information spreading. Physical Review E, 83, 045–102. Scholar
  44. Mislove, A., Marcon, M., Gummadi, K.P., Druschel, P., & Bhattacharjee, B. (2007). Measurement and analysis of online social networks. In Proceedings of IMC ’07 (pp. 29–42). New York: ACM. Scholar
  45. Mok, D., Wellman, B., & Carrasco, J.A. (2009). Does distance still matter in the age of the Internet? Urban Studies, 46(13), 2747–2783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Newman, M., Barabasi, A.L., & Watts, D.J. (2006). The Structure and Dynamics of Networks, 1st edn. Princeton Studies in Complexity: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Onnela, J.P., Arbesman, S., González, M.C., Barabási, A.L., & Christakis, N.A. (2011). Geographic constraints on social network groups. PLoS ONE, 6(4), e16,939. Scholar
  48. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  49. Rout, D., Bontcheva, K., Preoţiuc-Pietro, D., & Cohn, T. (2013). Where’s@ wally?: a classification approach to geolocating users based on their social ties. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (pp. 11–20). ACM .Google Scholar
  50. Sadilek, A., Kautz, H., & Bigham, J.P. (2012). Finding your friends and following them to where you are. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (pp. 723–732). ACM.Google Scholar
  51. Scellato, S., Mascolo, C., Musolesi, M., & Latora, V. (2010). Distance matters: geo-social metrics for online social networks. In Proceedings of WOSN’10.Google Scholar
  52. Scellato, S., Mascolo, C., Musolesi, M., & Crowcroft, J. (2011a). Track globally, deliver locally: improving content delivery networks by tracking geographic social cascades. In Proceedings of the 20th world wide web conference (WWW’11) Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
  53. Scellato, S, Noulas, A, Lambiotte, R, & Mascolo, C (2011b). Socio-Spatial properties of online location-based social networks. In Proceedings of ICWSM’11.Google Scholar
  54. Spiro, E.S., Almquist, Z.W., & Butts, C.T. (2016). The persistence of division: geography, institutions, and online friendship ties. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 2, 2378023116634,340.Google Scholar
  55. Telefónica, F. (2012). La Sociedad de la Información en España 2011. Fundación Telefónica.Google Scholar
  56. Tobler, W.R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the detroit region. Economic Geography, 46, 234–240. Scholar
  57. Travers, J., & Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Phychology Today, 1, 61–67.Google Scholar
  58. Traverso, S., Huguenin, K., Erramilli, T.V.I., Laoutaris, N., & Papagiannaki, K. (2012). Tailgate: handling long-tail content with a little help from friends. In Proceedings of the 21st world wide web conference (WWW 2012), Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  59. Ugander, J., Karrer, B., Backstrom, L., & Marlow, C. (2011). The anatomy of the facebook social graph. arXiv:11114503.
  60. Volkovich, Y., Scellato, S., Laniado, D., Mascolo, C., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2012). The length of bridge ties: structural and geographic properties of online social interactions. In International AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM-12).Google Scholar
  61. Wilson, C., Boe, B., Sala, A., Puttaswamy, K.P.N., & Zhao, B.Y. (2009). User interactions in social networks and their implications. In Proceedings of eurosys ’09 (pp. 205–218). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  62. Zipf, G.K. (1948). Human behaviour and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eurecat - Technology Centre of CataloniaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.AppNexusNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.GoogleLondonUK
  4. 4.University of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations