Comparing the diversity of information by word-of-mouth vs. web spread

Many studies have explored spreading and diffusion through complex networks. The following study examines a specific case of spreading of opinions in modern society through two spreading schemes, defined as being either through word-of-mouth (WOM), or through online search engines (WEB). We apply both modelling and real experimental results and compare the opinions people adopt through an exposure to their friend`s opinions, as opposed to the opinions they adopt when using a search engine based on the PageRank algorithm. A simulated study shows that when members in a population adopt decisions through the use of the WEB scheme, the population ends up with a few dominant views, while other views are barely expressed. In contrast, when members adopt decisions based on the WOM scheme, there is a far more diverse distribution of opinions in that population. The simulative results are further supported by an online experiment which finds that people searching information through a search engine end up with far more homogenous opinions as compared to those asking their friends.

[1]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  Patterns of Cascading Behavior in Large Blog Graphs , 2007, SDM.

[2]  C. J. Kasperson,et al.  An Analysis of the Relationship Between Information Sources and Creativity in Scientists and Engineers. , 1978 .

[3]  Matthew Richardson,et al.  Mining knowledge-sharing sites for viral marketing , 2002, KDD.

[4]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Meme-tracking and the dynamics of the news cycle , 2009, KDD.

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

[6]  A. Vespignani,et al.  Competition among memes in a world with limited attention , 2012, Scientific Reports.

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

[8]  Panos Argyrakis,et al.  Distribution of infected mass in disease spreading in scale-free networks , 2003, cond-mat/0301322.

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

[10]  E. David,et al.  Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World , 2010 .

[11]  A. Barrat,et al.  Dynamical and bursty interactions in social networks. , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[12]  R. Bond,et al.  Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. , 1996 .

[13]  P. Zimbardo.  The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil , 2007 .

[14]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[15]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Inferring networks of diffusion and influence , 2010, KDD.

[16]  D. Helbing,et al.  The Hidden Geometry of Complex, Network-Driven Contagion Phenomena , 2013, Science.

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

[18]  A Vespignani,et al.  Topical interests and the mitigation of search engine bias , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  Yicheng Zhang,et al.  Identifying influential nodes in complex networks , 2012 .

[20]  G. Lilien,et al.  A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence through viral marketing , 2008 .

[21]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Competing for Attention in Social Media under Information Overload Conditions , 2014, PloS one.

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

[23]  Alain Barrat,et al.  Social network dynamics of face-to-face interactions , 2011, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[24]  Amanda Spink,et al.  The Effect on Click-through of Combining Sponsored and Non- sponsored Search Engine Results in a Single Listing , 2007 .

[25]  Duncan J Watts,et al.  A simple model of global cascades on random networks , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Chris Arney,et al.  Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World (Easley, D. and Kleinberg, J.; 2010) [Book Review] , 2013, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.

[27]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Information diffusion and external influence in networks , 2012, KDD.

[28]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Tracking information epidemics in blogspace , 2005, The 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI'05).

[29]  S. Havlin,et al.  Scaling laws of human interaction activity , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[31]  Bing Pan,et al.  The power of search engine ranking for tourist destinations , 2015 .

[32]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  The PageRank Citation Ranking : Bringing Order to the Web , 1999, WWW 1999.

[33]  Matthew Richardson,et al.  Mining the network value of customers , 2001, KDD '01.

[34]  Susan K. Walker.  Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives , 2011 .

[35]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World [Book Review] , 2013, IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag..

[36]  Arun G. Chandrasekhar,et al.  The Diffusion of Microfinance , 2012, Science.

[37]  D. Watts,et al.  Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation , 2007 .

[38]  David M. Pennock,et al.  Winners don't take all: Characterizing the competition for links on the web , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  I. N. A. C. I. J. H. Fowler.  Book Review: Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. , 2009 .

[40]  S. Havlin,et al.  Epidemic threshold for the susceptible-infectious-susceptible model on random networks. , 2010, Physical review letters.