Sensitivity Analysis for Contagion Effects in Social Networks

Analyses of social network data have suggested that obesity, smoking, happiness, and loneliness all travel through social networks. Individuals exert ‘‘contagion effects’’ on one another through social ties and association. These analyses have come under critique because of the possibility that homophily from unmeasured factors may explain these statistical associations and because similar findings can be obtained when the same methodology is applied to height, acne, and headaches, for which the conclusion of contagion effects seems somewhat less plausible. The author uses sensitivity analysis techniques to assess the extent to which supposed contagion effects for obesity, smoking, happiness, and loneliness might be explained away by homophily or confounding and the extent to which the critique using analysis of data on height, acne, and headaches is relevant. Sensitivity analyses suggest that contagion effects for obesity and smoking cessation are reasonably robust to possible latent homophily or environmental confounding; those for happiness and loneliness are somewhat less so. Supposed effects for height, acne, and headaches are all easily explained away by latent homophily and confounding. The methodology that has been used in past studies for contagion effects in social networks, when used in conjunction with sensitivity analysis, may prove useful in establishing social influence for various behaviors and states. The sensitivity analysis approach can be used to address the critique of latent homophily as a possible explanation of associations interpreted as contagion effects.

[1]  W. Kannel,et al.  The Framingham Offspring Study. Design and preliminary data. , 1975, Preventive medicine.

[2]  L. Radloff The CES-D Scale , 1977 .

[3]  T. Dawber,et al.  The Framingham Study: The Epidemiology of Atherosclerotic Disease , 1980 .

[4]  P. Allhoff,et al.  The Framingham Offspring Study , 1991 .

[5]  P. Spirtes,et al.  Causation, prediction, and search , 1993 .

[6]  N. Christakis,et al.  The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network Over 32 Years , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  The spread of obesity in a social network. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  N. Christakis,et al.  SUPPLEMENTARY ONLINE MATERIAL FOR: The Collective Dynamics of Smoking in a Large Social Network , 2022 .

[9]  N. Christakis,et al.  Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  Jason M. Fletcher,et al.  Detecting implausible social network effects in acne, height, and headaches: longitudinal analysis , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  N. Christakis,et al.  Estimating Peer Effects on Health in Social Networks , 2008, Journal of health economics.

[12]  Jason M. Fletcher,et al.  Is Obesity Contagious? Social Networks vs. Environmental Factors in the Obesity Epidemic , 2008, Journal of Health Economics.

[13]  Arun Sundararajan,et al.  Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  N. Christakis,et al.  Alone in the Crowd: The Structure and Spread of Loneliness in a Large Social Network , 2009 .

[15]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Social influence and the diffusion of user-created content , 2009, EC '09.

[16]  Nicholas A. Christakis,et al.  Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Onyebuchi A Arah,et al.  Bias Formulas for Sensitivity Analysis of Unmeasured Confounding for General Outcomes, Treatments, and Confounders , 2011, Epidemiology.

[18]  Russell Lyons,et al.  The Spread of Evidence-Poor Medicine via Flawed Social-Network Analysis , 2010, 1007.2876.

[19]  Cosma Rohilla Shalizi,et al.  Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies , 2010, Sociological methods & research.