Consume, Modify, Share (CMS): The Interplay between Individual Decisions and Structural Network Properties in the Diffusion of Information

Widely used information diffusion models such as Independent Cascade Model, Susceptible Infected Recovered (SIR) and others fail to acknowledge that information is constantly subject to modification. Some aspects of information diffusion are best explained by network structural characteristics while in some cases strong influence comes from individual decisions. We introduce reinvention, the ability to modify information, as an individual level decision that affects the diffusion process as a whole. Based on a combination of constructs from the Diffusion of Innovations and the Critical Mass Theories, the present study advances the CMS (consume, modify, share) model which accounts for the interplay between network structure and human behavior and interactions. The model's building blocks include processes leading up to and following the formation of a critical mass of information adopters and disseminators. We examine the formation of an inflection point, information reach, sustainability of the diffusion process and collective value creation. The CMS model is tested on two directed networks and one undirected network, assuming weak or strong ties and applying constant and relative modification schemes. While all three networks are designed for disseminating new knowledge they differ in structural properties. Our findings suggest that modification enhances the diffusion of information in networks that support undirected connections and carries the biggest effect when information is shared via weak ties. Rogers' diffusion model and traditional information contagion models are fine tuned. Our results show that modifications not only contribute to a sustainable diffusion process, but also aid information in reaching remote areas of the network. The results point to the importance of cultivating weak ties, allowing reciprocal interaction among nodes and supporting the modification of information in promoting diffusion processes. These results have theoretical and practical implications for designing networks aimed at accelerating the creation and diffusion of information.

[1]  M. Macy,et al.  FROM FACTORS TO ACTORS: Computational Sociology and Agent-Based Modeling , 2002 .

[2]  N. Christakis,et al.  Social Network Sensors for Early Detection of Contagious Outbreaks , 2010, PloS one.

[3]  Jon Kleinberg,et al.  Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network , 2003, KDD '03.

[4]  Éva Tardos,et al.  Maximizing the Spread of Influence through a Social Network , 2015, Theory Comput..

[5]  Sheizaf Rafaeli,et al.  Information Sharing Online: A Research Challenge , 2005, Int. J. Knowl. Learn..

[6]  Daphne R. Raban,et al.  User-Centered Evaluation of Information: A Research Challenge , 2007, Internet Res..

[7]  E. Fehr,et al.  Gift Exchange and Reciprocity in Competitive Experimental Markets , 1995 .

[8]  Noah E. Friedkin,et al.  A test of structural features of granovetter's strength of weak ties theory , 1980 .

[9]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  {SNAP Datasets}: {Stanford} Large Network Dataset Collection , 2014 .

[10]  Mark S. Granovetter The Impact of Social Structure on Economic Outcomes Social Networks and Economic Outcomes: Core Principles , 2022 .

[11]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[12]  Hosung Park,et al.  What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? , 2010, WWW '10.

[13]  Malik Magdon-Ismail,et al.  Simulating the Diffusion of Information: An Agent-Based Modeling Approach , 2010, Int. J. Agent Technol. Syst..

[14]  T. Schelling Micromotives and Macrobehavior , 1978 .

[15]  Sergio Gómez,et al.  Competing spreading processes on multiplex networks: awareness and epidemics , 2014, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[16]  Menahem Blondheim,et al.  The medium is the joke: online humor about and by networked computers , 2010, New Media Soc..

[17]  Bernardo A. Huberman,et al.  Trends in Social Media: Persistence and Decay , 2011, ICWSM.

[18]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The role of social networks in information diffusion , 2012, WWW.

[19]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. , 2000, Physical review letters.

[20]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[21]  Jacob Goldenberg,et al.  Using cellular automata modeling of the emergence of innovations , 2001 .

[22]  Barry A. T. Brown,et al.  Reciprocity: Understanding online social relations , 2012, First Monday.

[23]  Valerie Barker,et al.  Older Adolescents' Motivations for Social Network Site Use: The Influence of Gender, Group Identity, and Collective Self-Esteem , 2009, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[24]  W. O. Kermack,et al.  A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics , 1927 .

[25]  Eric Gilbert,et al.  The network in the garden: an empirical analysis of social media in rural life , 2008, CHI.

[26]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Linked - how everything is connected to everything else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life , 2003 .

[27]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Production of Collective Action in Alliance-Based Interorganizational Communication and Information Systems , 1998 .

[28]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Information Evolution in Social Networks , 2014, WSDM.

[29]  Sergio Gómez,et al.  On the dynamical interplay between awareness and epidemic spreading in multiplex networks , 2013, Physical review letters.

[30]  Jacob Goldenberg,et al.  Cellular automata modeling of resistance to innovations: Effects and solutions , 2004 .

[31]  Mark S. Granovetter Threshold Models of Collective Behavior , 1978, American Journal of Sociology.

[32]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Halting viruses in scale-free networks. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[33]  Chengyi Xia,et al.  An SIR model with infection delay and propagation vector in complex networks , 2012 .

[34]  Fay Sudweeks,et al.  Networked Interactivity , 1997, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[35]  Wen-Xu Wang,et al.  Information explosion on complex networks and control , 2010 .

[36]  Jon Kleinberg,et al.  Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on twitter , 2011, WWW.

[37]  Colin Lankshear,et al.  Online memes, affinities, and cultural production , 2007 .

[38]  Nan Lin,et al.  Analyzing the Instrumental Use of Relations in the Context of Social Structure , 1978 .

[39]  G. Marwell,et al.  The critical mass in collective action : a micro-social theory , 1993 .

[40]  Yamir Moreno,et al.  Dynamics of interacting diseases , 2014, 1402.4523.

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

[42]  Nataša Golubovi,et al.  NETWORK STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL , 2010 .

[43]  Henry Jenkins Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century , 2006 .

[44]  Dee T. Allsop,et al.  Word-of-Mouth Research: Principles and Applications , 2007, Journal of Advertising Research.

[45]  Andrea C. Wojnicki,et al.  Word-of-Mouth as Self-Enhancement , 2008 .

[46]  Henry Jenkins,et al.  Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture , 2013 .

[47]  Mason A. Porter,et al.  Multilayer networks , 2013, J. Complex Networks.

[48]  Ramanathan V. Guha,et al.  Information diffusion through blogspace , 2004, WWW '04.

[49]  J. Kirby,et al.  Connected Marketing: The Viral, Buzz And Word Of Mouth Revolution , 2007 .

[50]  Junjie Wu,et al.  Weak ties: subtle role of information diffusion in online social networks. , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[51]  L. Freeman Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[52]  Katherine L. Milkman,et al.  What Makes Online Content Viral? , 2012 .

[53]  Jude Yew,et al.  Social performances: understanding the motivations for online participatory behavior , 2009, GROUP.

[54]  Daniel Beimborn,et al.  A Unified Economic Model of Standard Diffusion: The Impact of Standardization Cost, Network Effects, and Network Topology , 2006, MIS Q..

[55]  Erika Pearson,et al.  Digital gifts: Participation and gift exchange in Livejournal communities , 2007, First Monday.

[56]  Liz Moor Spreadable media: creating value and meaning in a networked culture , 2017 .

[57]  Nina Schwarz,et al.  Agent-based modeling of the diffusion of environmental innovations — An empirical approach , 2009 .

[58]  N. Lee,et al.  Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network , 2007 .

[59]  Jock Given,et al.  The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom , 2007, Inf. Econ. Policy.

[60]  Masahiro Kimura,et al.  Prediction of Information Diffusion Probabilities for Independent Cascade Model , 2008, KES.

[61]  G. Marwell,et al.  A Theory of the Critical Mass. I. Interdependence, Group Heterogeneity, and the Production of Collective Action , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[62]  Paul N Williams,et al.  Transfer of research-based HIV prevention interventions to community service providers: fidelity and adaptation. , 2000, AIDS education and prevention : official publication of the International Society for AIDS Education.

[63]  Jingjing Cheng,et al.  SIHR rumor spreading model in social networks , 2012 .

[64]  Yamir Moreno,et al.  Effects of delayed recovery and nonuniform transmission on the spreading of diseases in complex networks , 2012, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications.

[65]  Rizal Setya Perdana What is Twitter , 2013 .