Investigating the Impact of Network Effects on Content Generation: Evidence from a Large Online Student Network

With the rapid growth of online social network sites (SNS), it has become imperative for platform owners and online marketers to investigate what drives content production on these platforms. However, previous research has found it difficult to statistically model these factors using observational data due to the inability to separate the effects of network formation from those of network influence. The inability to successfully separate these two mechanisms makes it difficult to interpret whether the observed behavior is a result of peer influence or merely indicative of a selection bias due to homophily. In this paper, we propose an actor-oriented continuous-time model to jointly estimate the co-evolution of the users' social network structure and their content production behavior using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) based simulation approach. Specifically, we offer a method to analyze non-stationary and continuous behavior with network effects, similar to what is observed in social media ecosystems. Leveraging a unique dataset contributed by Facebook, we apply our model to data on university students across six months to find that users tend to connect with others that have similar posting behavior. However, after doing so, users tend to diverge in posting behavior. Further, we also discover that homophilous friend selection as well as susceptibility to peer influence are sensitive to the strength of the posting behaviour. Our results provide insights and recommendations for SNS platforms to sustain an active and viable community.

[1]  Khim-Yong Goh,et al.  Social Media Brand Community and Consumer Behavior: Quantifying the Relative Impact of User- and Marketer-Generated Content , 2013, Inf. Syst. Res..

[2]  K. Weinfurt,et al.  Perception of friends' use of alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana among urban schoolchildren: a longitudinal analysis. , 1996, Addictive behaviors.

[3]  S. Feld.  Social Structural Determinants of Similarity among Associates , 1982 .

[4]  Kerk F. Kee,et al.  Being Immersed in Social Networking Environment: Facebook Groups, Uses and Gratifications, and Social Outcomes , 2009, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[5]  Jere M. Cohen.  Sources of peer group homogeneity. , 1977 .

[6]  Mustafa Emirbayer,et al.  Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency , 1994, American Journal of Sociology.

[7]  J. Polivy,et al.  Effects of the presence of others on food intake: a normative interpretation. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  S. Borgatti,et al.  The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review and Typology , 2003 .

[9]  Kathleen M. Carley.  A Theory of Group Stability , 1991 .

[10]  H. Robbins.  A Stochastic Approximation Method , 1951 .

[11]  James Konow,et al.  Mixed Feelings: Theories and Evidence of Warm Glow and Altruism , 2006 .

[12]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Feedback effects between similarity and social influence in online communities , 2008, KDD.

[13]  Sonia Livingstone,et al.  Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression , 2008, New Media Soc..

[14]  Param Vir Singh,et al.  The Emergence of Opinion Leaders in a Networked Online Community: A Dyadic Model with Time Dynamics and a Heuristic for Fast Estimation , 2013, Manag. Sci..

[15]  K. Bauman,et al.  The contribution of influence and selection to adolescent peer group homogeneity: the case of adolescent cigarette smoking. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[17]  Richard D. Waters,et al.  Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook , 2009 .

[18]  C. Manski.  Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem , 1993 .

[19]  Hedley Rees,et al.  Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. , 1985 .

[20]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Friendship as Social process: a substantive and methodological analysis , 1964 .

[21]  Jeff J Hemsley,et al.  Homophily in the Guise of Cross-Linking , 2014 .

[22]  Kevin Lewis,et al.  Social selection and peer influence in an online social network , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Peter H. Reingen,et al.  Brand Congruence in Interpersonal Relations: A Social Network Analysis , 1984 .

[24]  Deirdre M. Kirke.  Chain reactions in adolescents' cigarette, alcohol and drug use: similarity through peer influence or the patterning of ties in peer networks? , 2004, Soc. Networks.

[25]  Dylan Walker,et al.  Tie Strength, Embeddedness, and Social Influence: A Large-Scale Networked Experiment , 2014, Manag. Sci..

[26]  T. Newcomb.  Student Peer-Group Influence. , 1962 .

[27]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  The Behavior Chain for Online Participation: How Successful Web Services Structure Persuasion , 2007, PERSUASIVE.

[28]  L. Berkowitz,et al.  External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. , 1982 .

[29]  Patti M. Valkenburg,et al.  Friend Networking Sites and Their Relationship to Adolescents' Well-Being and Social Self-Esteem , 2006, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[30]  Michael Michell.  Smoke Rings: social network analysis of friendship groups, smoking and drug-taking , 2000 .

[31]  Arun Sundararajan,et al.  Engineering social contagions: Optimal network seeding in the presence of homophily , 2013, Network Science.

[32]  Robin I. M. Dunbar.  Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates , 1992 .

[33]  Kees van Montfort,et al.  Longitudinal models in the behavioral and related sciences , 2007 .

[34]  A. B. Hollingshead,et al.  Elmtown's Youth - The Impact Of Social Classes On Adolescents , 2007 .

[35]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[36]  J. Brook,et al.  Stages of drug abuse in adolescence: Personality, peer, and family correlates. , 1983 .

[37]  S. Wasserman.  A Stochastic Model for Directed Graphs with Transition Rates Determined by Reciprocity , 1980 .

[38]  Matthew Richardson,et al.  Yes, there is a correlation: - from social networks to personal behavior on the web , 2008, WWW.

[39]  J. Heckman,et al.  Lab Experiments Are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences , 2009, Science.

[40]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Group formation in large social networks: membership, growth, and evolution , 2006, KDD '06.

[41]  Andrew Howes,et al.  The problem of conflicting social spheres: effects of network structure on experienced tension in social network sites , 2009, CHI.

[42]  Thomas J. Fararo,et al.  A study of a biased friendship net , 1964 .

[43]  D. Ruppert,et al.  Efficient Estimations from a Slowly Convergent Robbins-Monro Process , 1988 .

[44]  Samuel Leinhardt,et al.  A dynamic model for social networks , 1977 .

[45]  T. Snijders.  Stochastic actor-oriented models for network change , 1996 .

[46]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Distribution of node characteristics in complex networks , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[47]  Param Vir Singh,et al.  Networks, Social Influence, and the Choice Among Competing Innovations: Insights from Open Source Software Licenses , 2013, Inf. Syst. Res..

[48]  S. Wasserman.  Analyzing Social Networks as Stochastic Processes , 1980 .

[49]  Catherine Tucker.  Social Advertising: How Advertising that Explicitly Promotes Social Influence Can Backfire , 2016 .

[50]  L. Katz,et al.  The concept of configuration of interpersonal relations in a group as a time-dependent stochastic process , 1959 .

[51]  E. Airoldi,et al.  A natural experiment of social network formation and dynamics , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[52]  T. Snijders.  The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics , 2001 .

[53]  T. Snijders,et al.  Modeling the Coevolution of Networks and Behavior , 2007 .

[54]  D. Lambourn.  Method of Moments , 2004 .

[55]  S. Asch.  Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments , 1951 .

[56]  S. Feld.  The Focused Organization of Social Ties , 1981, American Journal of Sociology.

[57]  E. Oetting,et al.  Primary socialization theory: the etiology of drug use and deviance. I. , 1998, Substance use & misuse.

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

[59]  Olivier Toubia,et al.  Intrinsic vs. Image-Related Utility in Social Media: Why Do People Contribute Content to Twitter? , 2013, Mark. Sci..

[60]  X. Zhang,et al.  Group Size and Incentives to Contribute: A Natural Experiment at Chinese Wikipedia , 2010 .

[61]  G. Yin.  On extensions of Polyak's averaging approach to stochastic approximation , 1991 .

[62]  Charlotte C. Greenan,et al.  Diffusion of innovations in dynamic networks , 2015 .

[63]  Noah E. Friedkin,et al.  Norm formation in social influence networks , 2001, Soc. Networks.

[64]  N. Ellison,et al.  Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis , 2008 .

[65]  J. Billy,et al.  Patterns of Adolescent Friendship and Effects on Sexual Behavior , 1985 .

[66]  Keith N. Hampton,et al.  Does the Internet Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital? , 2001 .

[67]  PATRICK DOREIAN,et al.  Network Autocorrelation Models , 1984 .

[68]  S. Feld,et al.  Patterns of Sociometric Choices: Transitivity Reconsidered , 1982 .

[69]  D. Kandel.  Homophily, Selection, and Socialization in Adolescent Friendships , 1978, American Journal of Sociology.

[70]  Jollean K. Sinclaire,et al.  Adoption of social networking sites: an exploratory adaptive structuration perspective for global organizations , 2011, Inf. Technol. Manag..

[71]  Avi Goldfarb,et al.  Privacy Regulation and Online Advertising , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[72]  L. A. Fisher,et al.  Influence and Selection In the Friend-adolescent Relationship: Findings from Studies of Adolescent Smoking and Drinking1 , 1988 .

[73]  R. LaRose,et al.  A Social Cognitive Theory of Internet Uses and Gratifications: Toward a New Model of Media Attendance , 2004 .

[74]  C. Steglich,et al.  DYNAMIC NETWORKS AND BEHAVIOR: SEPARATING SELECTION FROM INFLUENCE: separating selection from influence , 2010 .

[75]  D. McDowall,et al.  Reciprocal Causal Relationships among Drug Use, Peers, and Beliefs: A Five-Wave Panel Model , 1996 .

[76]  Tom A. B. Snijders,et al.  Friendship Networks Through Time: An Actor-Oriented Dynamic Statistical Network Model , 1999, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[77]  Hema Yoganarasimhan,et al.  Impact of social network structure on content propagation: A study using YouTube data , 2011, Quantitative Marketing and Economics.

[78]  J. Andreoni.  Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[79]  Dawn Iacobucci,et al.  Sequential social network data , 1988 .

[80]  Eszter Hargittai,et al.  Whose Space? Differences Among Users and Non-Users of Social Network Sites , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[81]  Morroe Berger,et al.  Freedom and control in modern society , 1954 .

[82]  G. C. Homans,et al.  Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. , 1975 .

[83]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[84]  M. Macy.  Polarization in Dynamic Networks : A Hopfield Model of Emergent Structure , 2003 .

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

[86]  Mark Newman,et al.  Networks: An Introduction , 2010 .

[87]  T. Mayer.  Parties and networks: Stochastic models for relationship networks , 1984 .