Spreading of social contagions without key players

  • Gizem Korkmaz
  • Chris J. Kuhlman
  • S. S. Ravi
  • Fernando Vega-Redondo
Article
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

Contagion models have been used to study the spread of social behavior among agents of a networked population. Examples include information diffusion, social influence, and participation in collective action (e.g., protests). Key players, which are typically agents characterized by structural properties of the underlying network (e.g., high degree, high core number or high centrality) are considered important for spreading social contagions. In this paper, we ask whether contagions can propagate through a population that is devoid of key players. We justify the use of Erdős-Rényi random graphs as a representation of unstructured populations that lack key players, and investigate whether complex contagions—those requiring reinforcement—can spread on them. We demonstrate that two game-theoretic contagion models that utilize common knowledge for collective action can readily spread such contagions, thus differing significantly from classic complex contagion models. We compare contagion dynamics results on unstructured networks to those on more typically-studied, structured social networks to understand the role of network structure. We test the classic complex contagion and the two game-theoretic models with a total of 18 networks that range over five orders of magnitude in size and have different structural properties. The two common knowledge models are also contrasted to understand the effects of different modeling assumptions on dynamics. We show that under a wide range of conditions, these two models produce markedly different results. Finally, we demonstrate that the disparity between classic complex contagion and common knowledge models persists as network size increases.

Keywords

Key players Common knowledge Coordination Social contagion dynamics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the reviewers for their feedback and suggestions. We thank our external collaborators and members of the Network Dynamics and Simulation Science Laboratory (NDSSL) and the Social and Decision Analytics Laboratory (SDAL) for their suggestions and comments. This material is based upon work supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under award number FA9550-17-1-0378, by NSF DIBBS Grant ACI-1443054, NSF BIG DATA Grant IIS-1633028, and Defense Threat Reduction Agency Comprehensive National Incident Management System Contract HDTRA1-11-D-0016-0001. Any opinions, finding, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Air Force.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdelhamid, S., Kuhlman, C.J., Marathe, M.V., Ravi, S.S., Reid, K.: Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation of Depression and Its Impact on Students? Success and Academic Retention. In: American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-garadi, M.A., Varathan, K.D., Ravana, S.D.: Identification of influential spreaders in online social networks using interaction weighted k-core decomposition method. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 468, 278–288 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albert, R., Jeong, H., Barabasi, A.: Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature 406, 378–381 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alexe, G., Alexe, S., Crama, Y., Foldes, S., Hammer, P.L., Simeone, B.: Consensus algorithms for the generation of all maximal bicliques. Discret. Appl. Math. (DAM) 145, 11–21 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arnaboldi, V., Passarella, A., Tesconi, M., Gazzè, D.: Towards a characterization of Ego- centric networks in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2011th Confederated International Conference on the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, pp 524–533 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Backstrom, L., Boldi, P., Rosa, M., Ugander, J., Vigna, S.: Four degrees of separation. In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci), pp 33–42 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bader, D.A., Kintali, S., Madduri, K., Mihail, M.: Approximating betweenness centrality. In: WAW, pp 124–137 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bakshy, E., Messing, S., Adamic, L.A.: Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 1130–1132 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., Adamic, L.: The role of social networks in information diffusion. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, pp 519–528 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barabasi, A., Albert, R.: Emergence of scaling in random networks. Nature 286, 509–512 (1999)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barash, V., Cameron, C., Macy, M.: Critical phenomena in complex contagions. Soc. Networks 34 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bonacich, P.: Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique indentification. J. Math. Sociol. 2, 113–120 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Borgatti, S.P.: Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Comput Math Organiz Theor 12, 21–34 (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Budak, C., Agrawal, D., Abbadi, A.E.: Limiting the spread of misinformation in social Net- works. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Centola, D., Macy, M.: Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. Am. J. Soc. 113(3), 702–734 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen, W., Wang, C., Wang, Y.: Scalable influence maximization for prevalent viral marketing in large-scale social networks. In: ACM International Conference on Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (KDD), pp 1029–1038 (2010a)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen, W., Yuan, Y., Zhang, L.: Scalable influence maximization in social networks under the linear threshold model. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). ISBN 978-0-7695-4256-0, pp 88–97 (2010b)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheng, J., Adamic, L.A., Dow, P.A., Kleinberg, J., Leskovec, J.: Can cascades be predicted?. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW) (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chwe, M.S.-Y.: Culture, circles, and commercials publicity, common knowledge, and social coordination. Ration. Soc. 10(1), 47–75 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chwe, M. S. -Y.: Structure and strategy in collective action. Am. J. Sociol. (AJS) 105, 128–156 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chwe, M. S. -Y.: Communication and coordination in social networks. Rev. Econ. Stud. 67, 1–16 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clifford, P, Sudbury, A: A model for spatial conflict. Biometrika 60, 581–588 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    de Arruda, GF, Barbieri, AL, Rodriguez, PM, Rodrigues, FA, Moreno, Y, Costa, L. F.: Role of centrality for the identification of influential spreaders in complex networks, vol. 90, p 032812 (2014),  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.90.032812. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.90.032812
  24. 24.
    Devineni, P., Koutra, D., Faloutsos, M., Faloutsos, C.: If walls could talk: patterns and anomalies in facebook wallposts. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), pp 367–374 (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dodds, P.S., Watts, D.J.: A generalized model of social and biological contagion. J. Theor. Biol. 232(4), 587–604 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dow, P.A., Adamic, L.A., Friggeri, A.: The anatomy of large facebook cascades. In: International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), pp 145–154 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fowler, J., Mocanu, D., Steinert-Threlkeld, Z., Vespignani, A.: Common Knowledge and Protest (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Freeman, LC: A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40, 35–41 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Freeman, LC: Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Soc. Networks 1, 215–239 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Friggeri, A, Adamic, LA, Eckles, D, Cheng, J: Rumor cascades. In: International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gjoka, M, Kurant, M, Butts, CT, Mkaropoulou, A: Walking in facebook: a case study of unbiased sampling of OSNs. In: Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Information Communications (INFOCOM), pp 2498–2506 (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., Muller, E.: Talk of the network: a complex systems look at the underlying process of word-of-mouth. Mark. Lett. 12, 211–223 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gonzalez-Bailon, S., Borge-Holthoefer, J., Rivero, A., Moreno, Y.: The dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network. Sci. Rep. 1–7 (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gosling, S.D., Gaddis, S., Vazire, S.: Personality impressions based on facebook profiles. In: International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) (2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gould, R: Collective action and network structure. Am. Sociol. Rev. 58, 182–196 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Granovetter, M: Threshold models of collective behavior. Am. J. Sociol. 83(6), 1420–1443 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gunasekara, R.C., Mehrotra, K., Mohan, C.K.: Multi-objective optimization to identify key players in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), pp 443–450 (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gunasekara, R.C., Mehrotra, K., Mohan, C.K.: Multi-objective optimization to identify key players in large social networks. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 5(1), 21 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gupta, S., Yan, X., Lerman, K.: Structural properties of ego networks. In: SBP, pp 55–64 (2015)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hethcote, H: The mathematics of infectious diseases. SIAM Rev. 42(4), 599–653 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hodas, NO, Lerman, K: The simple rules of social contagion. Sci. Rep. 4 (2014)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Huang, T. -K., Rahman, MS, Madhyastha, HV, Faloutsos, M, Ribeiro, B: An analysis of socware cascades in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, pp 619–630 (2013)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Huynh, H.N., Legara, E.F., Monterola, C.: A dynamical model of twitter activity profiles. In: Hypertext, pp 49–57 (2015)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Janssen, RHP, Monsuur, H: Identifying stable network structures and sets of key players using a w-covering perspective. Math. Soc. Sci. 66(3), 245–253 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jin, F., Khandpur, R.P., Self, N., Dougherty, E., Guo, S., Chen, F., Prakash, B.A., Ra- makrishnan, N.: Modeling mass protest adoption in social network communities using geometric brownian motion. In: Proceedings of ACM International Conference on Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (KDD) (2014)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kawachi, K., Seki, M., Yoshida, H., Otake, Y., Warashina, K., Ueda, H.: A rumor transmission model with various contact interactions. J. Theor. Biol. 253, 55–60 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J., Tardos, E.: Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In: Proceedings of ACM International Conference on Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (KDD), pp 137–146 (2003)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kitsak, M., Gallos, L.K., Havlin, S., Liljeros, F., Muchnik, L., Stanley, H.E., Makse, H.A.: Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks. Nat. Phys. 6, 888–893 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kleinberg, J.M.: Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. J. ACM 46, 604–632 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Korkmaz, G., Kuhlman, C.J., Vega-Redondo, F.: Can Social Contagion Spread Without Key Players?. In: The 3rd International Conference on Behavioral, Economic, and SocioCultural Computing (BESC), pp 1–6 (2016)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Korkmaz, G., Kuhlman, C.J., Marathe, A., Marathe, M.V., Vega-Redondo, F.: Collective action through common knowledge using a facebook model. In: Thirteen International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS) (2014)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., Graepel, T.: Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (PNAS) 110 (15), 5802–5805 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kramer, A.DI., Guillory, J.E., Hancock, J.T.: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (PNAS) 111(24), 8788–8790 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kuhlman, C.J., Kumar, V.SA., Ravi, S.S.: Controlling opinion propagation in online networks. J. Comput. Networks 57, 2121–2132 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kuhlman, CJ, Kumar, V.S.A., Marathe, M.V., Ravi, S.S., Rosenkrantz, D.J.: Inhibiting diffusion of complex contagions in social networks: Theoretical and experimental results. Journal of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (DMKD) (2015)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kyle, TA, DeScioli, P, Haque, OS, Pinker, S: The psychology of coordination and common knowledge. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107, 657–676 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Leskovec, J: SNAP Datasets, http://snap.stanford.edu/data (2016)
  58. 58.
    Lewis, R: Convention: a philosophical study. Harvard U. Press (1969)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lloyd-Smith, JO, George, D, Pepin4, KM, Pitzer, VE, Pulliam, JRC, Dobson, AP, Hudson, PJ, Grenfell, BT: Epidemic dynamics at the human-animal interface. Science 26, 1362–1367 (2009)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lum, K., Swarup, S., Eubank, S., Hawdon, J.: The contagious nature of imprisonment: an agent-based model to explain racial disparities in incarceration rates. J. R. Soc. Interface. 11(98) (2014)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Macy, M: Chains of cooperation: Threshold effects in collective action. Am. Sociol. Rev. 56(6), 730–747 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    McAdam, D: Recruitment to high-risk activism–the case of freedom summer. Am. J. Sports Med. 92, 64–90 (1986)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mobilia, M: Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters? Phys. Rev. Lett. 91(2), 028701–10287014 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mobilia, M, Petersen, A, Redner, S: On the role of zealotry in the voter model. J. Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment P08029, 1–17 (2007a)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Mobilia, M, Petersen, A, Redner, S: On the role of zealotry in the voter model, vol. 2007 (2007b)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Morone, F, Makse, HA: Influence maximization in complex networks through optimal percolation. Nature 524, 65–68 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Myers, S.A., Leskovec, J.: Clash of the contagions: cooperation and competition in information diffusion. In: IEEE 12th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pp 539–548 (2012)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Nsoesie, EO, Beckman, RJ, Marathe, MV: Sensitivity analysis of an individual-based model for simulation of influenza epidemics. PLos ONE 7, e45414-1–e45414-16 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Oliver, P, Marwell, G: The paradox of group size in collective action: a theory of the critical mass. ii. Am. Sociol. Rev. 53(1), 1–8 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Oliver, P, Marwell, G, Teixeira, R: A theory of the critical mass. i. interdependence, group heterogeneity, and the production of collective action. Am. J. Sociol. 91(3), 522–556 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., Winograd, T.: The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web., Technical Report 1999-66, Stanford InfoLab. Previous number = SIDL-WP-1999-0120 (1999). http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/
  72. 72.
    Papachristos, AV, Wildeman, C, Roberto, E: Tragic, but not random: the social contagion of nonfatal gunshot injuries. Soc. Sci. Med. 125, 139–150 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Prakash, B.A., Chakrabarti, D., Faloutsos, M., Valler, N., Faloutsos, C.: Threshold conditions for arbitrary cascade models on arbitrary graphs. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pp 537–546 (2011a)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Prakash, B.A., Chakrabarti, D., Faloutsos, M., Valler, N., Faloutsos, C.: Threshold conditions for arbitrary cascade models on arbitrary networks. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining, pp 537–546 (2011b)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Prakash, B.A., Beutel, A., Rosenfeld, R., Faloutsos, C.: Winner takes all: competing viruses or ideas on fair-play networks. In: Proceedings of the 21st International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (2012)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Romero, D., Meeder, B., Kleinberg, J.: Differences in the Mechanics of Information Diffusion. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web (2011)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Saha, S., Adiga, A., Prakash, B.A., Vullikanti, A.KS.: Approximation algorithms for reducing the spectral radius to control epidemic spread. In: Proceedings of the 2015 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 568–576. Vancouver (2015)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Schelling, T: Micromotives and macrobehavior. W. W. Norton and company (1978)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Schneider, JA, Zhou, AN, Laumann, EO: A new HIV prevention network approach: sociometric peer change agent selection. Soc. Sci. Med. 125, 192–202 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Schoenebeck, G.: Potential networks, contagious communities, and understanding social network structure. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, pp 367–374 (2013)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Seidman, S.B.: Network Structure and Minimum Degree. Soc. Networks 5, 269–287 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Siegel, D.: Social networks and collective action. Am. J. Pol. Sc. 53, 122–138 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Sun, E., Rosenn, I.,Marlow, C.A., Lento, T.M.: Gesundheit! modeling contagion through facebook news feed. In: International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) (2009)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Takaguchi, T., Masuda, N., Holme, P.: Bursty communication patterns facilitate spreading in a threshold-based epidemic dynamics. Plos One 8, e68629-1–e68629-5 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Ugander, J., Karrer, B., Backstrom, L., Marlow, C.: The anatomy of the facebook social graph. In: Computing Research Repository (CoRR) (2011)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Viswanath, B., Mislove, A., Cha, M., Gummadi, K.P.: On the evolution of user interaction in facebook. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Online Social Networks (WOSN), pp 37–42 (2009)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Wang, S.,Wang, F., Chen, Y., Liu, C., Li, Z., Zhang, X.: Exploiting social circle broadness for influential spreaders identification in social networks. World Wide Web 18(3), 681–705 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Wang, X., Zhang, X., Zhao, C., Yi, D.: Maximizing the spread of influence via generalized degree discount. PLos ONE 11, e0164393-1–e0164393–16 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Wang, Y., Chakrabarti, D., Wang, C., Faloutsos, C.: Epidemic spreading in real networks: an eigenvalue viewpoint. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS), pp 25–34 (2003)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Watts, D: A simple model of global cascades on random networks. PNAS 99(9), 5766–5771 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Zhou, J., Liu, Z., Li, B.: Influence of network structure on rumor propagation. Phys. Lett. A 368, 458–463 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gizem Korkmaz
    • 1
  • Chris J. Kuhlman
    • 1
  • S. S. Ravi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fernando Vega-Redondo
    • 3
  1. 1.Biocomplexity InstituteVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity at Albany – SUNYAlbanyUSA
  3. 3.Department of Decision SciencesBocconi UniversityMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations