Exploring the effect of reinvention on critical mass formation and the diffusion of information in a social network

  • Hila Koren
  • Ido Kaminer
  • Daphne R. Raban
Original Article


Widely used information diffusion models are based on the assumption that exposure to information, like exposure to a virus, is enough for it to spread. However, the diffusion of information is more complex and involves an array of decisions regarding whether to consume the information received, and upon consumption, whether to pass it on to others. Using an agent-based simulation run on an actual network graph, we model a realistic information consumption and transmission process. The model builds upon the combination of two prominent social theories: diffusion of innovations and critical mass theory. We introduce the concept of reinvention, the modification of information, and investigate its effect on both critical mass formation and on the overall diffusion of information in the social network. Results show that network topology is crucial while traditional concepts such as ‘inflection point’ or ‘early adopters’ are of secondary importance. Although reinvented information requires more nodes to reach critical mass, it prolongs the diffusion of information past the inflection point so that information reaches a larger final audience, while also exhibiting accelerated production functions. Reinvention is found to have a prominent effect when transmitted via weak ties, thus allowing information to undergo an evolutionary process that contributes to an overall higher value of information, collective outcome, in the network.


Diffusion of information Critical mass Social networks Reinvention Agent-based model 



Partial funding was received from the EC project SocIoS, FP 7 STREP Project No. 257774. Additional funding was received from the I-CORE Program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee and The Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 1716/12).


  1. Abiteboul S, Greenshpan O, Milo T (2008) Modeling the mashup space. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM workshop on Web information and data management, pp 87–94Google Scholar
  2. Albert R, Barabási A-L (2002) Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev Mod Phys 74(1):47CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball P (2004) Critical mass. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Barabási AL, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439):509CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Barabási A-L, Ravasz E, Vicsek T (2001) Deterministic scale-free networks. Phys A 299(3):559–564CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrot C, Albers S (2008) Did they tell their friends? Using social network analysis to detect contagion processes. Available at SSRN:
  7. Berger JA, Heath C (2005) Idea habitats: how the prevalence of environmental cues influences the success of ideas. Cogn Sci 29(2):195–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berger JA, Milkman KL (2009) Social transmission, emotion, and the virality of online content. Wharton Research PaperGoogle Scholar
  9. Berman P, McLaughlin MW (1975) Federal programs supporting educational change, vol IV: the findings in reviewGoogle Scholar
  10. Blakely CH, Mayer JP, Gottschalk RG, Schmitt N, Davidson WS, Roitman DB, Emshoff JG (1987) The fidelity-adaptation debate: implications for the implementation of public sector social programs. Am J Community Psychol 15(3):253–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative science quarterly, 339–365Google Scholar
  12. Canright GS, Engø-Monsen K (2006) Spreading on networks: a topographic view. Complexus 3(1):131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dezső Z, Barabási A-L (2002) Halting viruses in scale-free networks. Physical Review E, 65(5), 055103Google Scholar
  14. Dodds PS, Muhamad R, Watts DJ (2003) An experimental study of search in global social networks. Science 301(5634):827–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fulk J, Heino R, Flanagin AJ, Monge PR, Bar F (2004) A test of the individual action model for organizational information commons. Organ Sci 15(5):569–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goel S, Watts DJ, Goldstein DG (2012) The structure of online diffusion networks. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM conference on electronic commerce, pp 623–638.
  17. Goldenberg J, Efroni S (2001) Using cellular automata modeling of the emergence of innovations. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 68(3):293–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gruhl D, Guha R, Liben-Nowell D, Tomkins A (2004) Information diffusion through blogspace. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web, pp 491–501Google Scholar
  19. Havelock RG (1974) Locals say innovation is local: a national survey of school superintendents. In: What do research findings say about getting innovations into schools: a symposium. Research for Better Schools, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  20. Howard-Spink S (2005) Grey Tuesday, online cultural activism and the mash-up of music and politics (originally published in October 2004). First MondayGoogle Scholar
  21. Jenkins H (2009) Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. The MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelly JA, Heckman TG, Stevenson LY, Williams PN, Ertl T, Hays RB, Neumann MS (2000) Transfer of research-based HIV prevention interventions to community service providers: fidelity and adaptation. AIDS Educ Prev Off Publ Int Soc AIDS Educ 12(5 Suppl):87–98Google Scholar
  23. Kempe D, Kleinberg J, Tardos É (2003) Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In: Proceedings of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 137–146. ACM, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  24. Kermark M, Mckendrick A (1927) Contributions to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Part I. Proc Roy Soc A 115:700–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kitsak M, Gallos LK, Havlin S, Liljeros F, Muchnik L, Stanley HE, Makse HA (2010) Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks. Nat Phys 6(11):888–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kossinets G, Watts DJ (2006) Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science 311(5757):88–90CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Lazarsfeld PF (1944) Communications research, vol 2. Harper, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Lazarsfeld PF, Menzel H et al (1961) On the relation between individual and collective properties. In: Complex organizations, vol 1, pp 422–440Google Scholar
  29. Mamman A (2002) The adoption and modification of management ideas in organizations: towards an analytical framework. Strateg Chang 11(7):379–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Markus ML (1987) Toward a “critical mass” theory of interactive media. Commun Res 14(5):491–511. doi: 10.1177/009365087014005003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marwell G, Oliver PE, Prahl R (1988) Social networks and collective action: a theory of the critical mass. III. Am J Sociol 94(3):502–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moldovan S, Goldenberg J (2004) Cellular automata modeling of resistance to innovations: effects and solutions. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 71(5):425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Monge PR, Fulk J, Kalman ME, Flanagin AJ, Parnassa C, Rumsey S (1998) Production of collective action in alliance-based interorganizational communication and information systems. Organ Sci 9(3):411–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oliver PE, Marwell G (2001) Whatever happened to critical mass theory? A retrospective and assessment. Sociol Theory 19(3):292–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oliver P, Marwell G, Teixeira R (1985) A theory of the critical mass. I. Interdependence, group heterogeneity, and the production of collective action. Am J Sociol 91(3):522–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pastor-Satorras R, Vespignani A (2001) Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. Phys Rev Lett 86(14):3200–3203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peddibhotla NB, Subramani MR (2007) Contributing to public document repositories: a critical mass theory perspective. Organ Stud 28(3):327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rafaeli S, Larose RJ (1993) Electronic bulletin boards and “public goods” explanations of collaborative mass media. Commun Res 20(2):277–297. doi: 10.1177/009365093020002005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rogers EM (1962) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, GlencoeGoogle Scholar
  40. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Romero DM, Meeder B, Kleinberg J (2011) Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World Wide Web, pp 695–704Google Scholar
  43. Schelling TC (1978) Micromotives and macrobehavior. WW Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Shakarian P, Eyre S, Paulo D (2013) A scalable heuristic for viral marketing under the tipping model. Soc Netw Anal Min 3(4):1225–1248Google Scholar
  45. Singhal A, Dearing JW (2006) Communication of innovations: a journey with Ev Rogers. Sage Publications, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stephen AT, Dover Y, Goldenberg J (2010) A comparison of the effects of transmitter activity and connectivity on the diffusion of information over online social networks. SSRN eLibrary.
  47. Valente TW (1996) Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Soc Netw 18(1):69–89CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. Von Hippel E (1976) The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Res Policy 5(3):212–239. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(76)90028-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Watts Duncan J (2002) A simple model of global cascades on random networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99(9):5766–5771CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Watts DJ, Dodds P (2007) The accidental influentials. Harv Bud Rev 85(2):22–23Google Scholar
  51. Wojnicki A, Godes D (2008) Word-of-mouth as self-enhancement. HBS Marketing Research Paper No. 06-01Google Scholar
  52. Wu F, Huberman BA, Adamic LA, Tyler JR (2004) Information flow in social groups. Phys A 337(1):327–335CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. Yew J (2009) Social performances: understanding the motivations for online participatory behavior. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on supporting group work, pp 397–398Google Scholar
  54. Zhao L, Wang J, Chen Y, Wang Q, Cheng J, Cui H (2012) SIHR rumor spreading model in social networks. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 391(7):995–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information and Knowledge ManagementUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Faculty of PhysicsTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations