Social selection and peer influence in an online social network

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 109, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 68-72

  Lewis, Kevin ^a,b   Gonzalez, Marco ^a,c   Kaufman, Jason ^b  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Santa Rosa Junior College   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; HUMAN; MUSIC; ONLINE SYSTEM; PEER GROUP; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SELF REPORT; SOCIAL INTERACTION; SOCIAL NETWORK; STUDENT;

CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; HUMANS; INTERNET; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MUSIC; PEER GROUP; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL SUPPORT; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES; STUDENTS;

EID: 84856003521     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1109739109     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Marsden PV (1988) Homogeneity in confiding relations. Soc Networks 10:57-76.
2. Blau PM, Schwartz JE (1984) Crosscutting Social Circles: Testing a Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations (Academic, Orlando, FL).
3. Fischer CS (1982) To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago).
4. Ennett ST, Bauman KE (1994) The contribution of influence and selection to adolescent peer group homogeneity: The case of adolescent cigarette smoking. J Pers Soc Psychol 67:653-663.
5. Lewis K, Kaufman J, Gonzalez M, Wimmer A, Christakis N (2008) Tastes, ties, and time: A new social network dataset using Facebook.com. Soc Networks 30:330-342.
6. Kandel DB (1978) Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. Am J Sociol 84:427-436.
7. Kossinets G, Watts DJ (2006) Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science 311(5757):88-90. (Pubitemid 43063064)
8. Ibarra H (1992) Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Adm Sci Q 37:422-447.
9. Mark N (1998) Birds of a feather sing together. Soc Forces 77:453-485.
10. Knoke D (1990) Networks of political action: Toward theory construction. Soc Forces 68:1041-1063.
11. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27:415-444.
12. Currarini S, Jackson MO, Pin P (2010) Identifying the roles of race-based choice and chance in high school friendship network formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:4857-4861.
13. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (Free Press, New York).
14. Centola D (2010) The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329:1194-1197.
15. Steglich C, Snijders TAB, Pearson M (2010) Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Sociol Methodol 40:329-393.
16. Snijders TAB, van de Bunt G, Steglich C (2010) Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Soc Networks 32:44-60.
17. Marsden PV (1990) Network data and measurement. Annu Rev Sociol 16:435-463.
18. Aral S, Muchnik L, Sundararajan A (2009) Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:21544-21549.
19. Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78:1360-1380.
20. Snijders TAB (2005) Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis, eds Carrington PJ, Scott J, Wasserman S (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge), pp 215-247.
21. Snijders TAB (2001) The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociol Methodol 31:361-395.
22. Lieberson S (2000) A Matter of Taste: How Names, Fashions, and Culture Change (Yale Univ Press, New Haven).
23. Bourdieu P (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA).
24. Lizardo O (2006) How cultural tastes shape personal networks. Am Sociol Rev 71:778-807.
25. Gladwell M (2002) The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference (Little, Brown, New York).
26. Keller E, Berry J (2003) The Influentials: One American in Ten Tells the Other Nine How to Vote, Where to Eat, and What to Buy (Free Press, New York).
27. Rivera MT, Soderstrom SB, Uzzi B (2010) Dynamics of dyads in social networks: Assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annu Rev Sociol 36:91-115.
28. Goodreau SM, Kitts JA, Morris M (2009) Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? Using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks. Demography 46(1):103-125.
29. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognit Psychol 5:207-232.
30. Kaufman J, Patterson O (2005) Cross-national cultural diffusion: The global spread of cricket. Am Sociol Rev 70:82-110. (Pubitemid 40815639)
31. DiMaggio P, Mohr J (1985) Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital selection. Am J Sociol 90:1231-1261.
32. Bryson B (1996) "Anything but heavy metal": Symbolic exclusion and musical dislikes. Am Sociol Rev 61:884-899.
33. Huisman M, Steglich C (2008) Treatment of non-response in longitudinal network studies. Soc Networks 30:297-308.
34. Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C (2007) The benefits of Facebook "friends": Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. J Comput Mediat Commun 12:1143-1168.
35. Wimmer A, Lewis K (2010) Beyond and below racial homophily: ERG models of a friendship network documented on Facebook. AJS 116:583-642.
36. Snijders TAB, Koskinen J, Schweinberger M (2010) Maximum likelihood estimation for social network dynamics. Ann Appl Stat 4:567-588.
37. Snijders TAB, Steglich C, Schweinberger M (2007) Longitudinal Models in the Behavioral and Related Sciences, eds van Montfort K, Oud H, Satorra A (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ), pp 41-71.