Social Informatics: Using Big Data to Understand Social Behavior

Online social media has emerged as a critical factor in information dissemination, search, marketing, expertise and influence discovery, and potentially an important tool for mobilizing people. It has also given researchers access to massive quantities of social data for empirical analysis. These data sets offer a rich source of evidence for studying dynamics of individual and group behavior, the structure of networks and global patterns of the flow of information on them. However, in most previous studies, the structure of the underlying networks was not directly visible but had to be inferred from the flow of information from one individual to another. As a result, we do not yet understand dynamics of information spread on networks or how the structure of the network affects it. We analyze data from two popular social news sites, Digg and Twitter, to understand the mechanisms of information diffusion in social networks, in the process, uncovering the primary role played by individual’s cognitive constraints in online social behavior.

[1]  Herbert W. Hethcote,et al.  The Mathematics of Infectious Diseases , 2000, SIAM Rev..

[2]  Ramanathan V. Guha,et al.  Information diffusion through blogspace , 2004, SKDD.

[3]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  Epidemic spreading in real networks: an eigenvalue viewpoint , 2003, 22nd International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, 2003. Proceedings..

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

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

[6]  S. Fortunato,et al.  Statistical physics of social dynamics , 2007, 0710.3256.

[7]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  How to search a social network , 2005, Soc. Networks.

[8]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data , 2007, SIAM Rev..

[9]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Attention and Effort , 1973 .

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

[11]  Fang Wu,et al.  Novelty and collective attention , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Information flow in social groups , 2003, cond-mat/0305305.

[13]  Dennis M. Wilkinson,et al.  Strong regularities in online peer production , 2008, EC '08.

[14]  Matthew J. Salganik,et al.  Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market , 2006, Science.

[15]  A. Yashin,et al.  Heterogeneity's ruses: some surprising effects of selection on population dynamics. , 1985, The American statistician.

[16]  D. Boyd,et al.  The Arab Spring| The Revolutions Were Tweeted: Information Flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions , 2011 .

[17]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  What Stops Social Epidemics? , 2011, ICWSM.

[18]  Daniel G. Goldstein,et al.  The structure of online diffusion networks , 2012, EC '12.

[19]  Tad Hogg,et al.  Diversity of User Activity and Content Quality in Online Communities , 2009, ICWSM.

[20]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  Social Information Processing in News Aggregation , 2007, IEEE Internet Computing.

[21]  Ravi Kumar,et al.  Influence and correlation in social networks , 2008, KDD.

[22]  M. Newman.  Spread of epidemic disease on networks. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[23]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Time-Critical Social Mobilization , 2010, Science.

[24]  Y. Moreno,et al.  Epidemic outbreaks in complex heterogeneous networks , 2001, cond-mat/0107267.

[25]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  Social Contagion: An Empirical Study of Information Spread on Digg and Twitter Follower Graphs , 2012, ArXiv.