Choosing your network: Social preferences in an online health community

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 125, Issue , 2015, Pages 19-31

  Centola, Damon ^a   van de Rijt, Arnout ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Fitness; Homophily; Internet; Networks; Selection; Social support; Weight loss

Indexed keywords

INTERNET; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PUBLIC HEALTH; SOCIAL CAPITAL; WEIGHT;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; COMPUTER NETWORK; DECISION MAKING; EXERCISE; FEMALE; FITNESS; HUMAN; IN VIVO STUDY; MALE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; ONLINE SYSTEM; PUBLIC HEALTH; SEX DIFFERENCE; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOCIAL NETWORK; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH STATUS; INTERNET; MIDDLE AGED; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL SUPPORT; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; EXERCISE; FEMALE; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL SUPPORT; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84919926873     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.019     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Ali M.M., Amialchuk A., Rizzo J.A. The influence of body weight on social network ties among adolescents. Econ. Hum. Biol. 2012, 10:20-34.
2. Aral S., Muchnik L., Sundararajan A. Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2009, 106:21544-21549.
3. Berger J., Fisek M.H., Norman R.Z. Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: an Expectation-States Approach 1977, Elsevier, New York.
4. Bertrand M., Mullainathan S. Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. Am. Econ. Rev. 2004, 94:991-1013.
5. Blau P.M. Inequality and Heterogeneity: a Primitive Theory of Social Structure 1977, Free Press, New York.
6. Blau P.M., Schwartz J.E. Crosscutting Social Circles: Testing a Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations 1984, Academic Press, New York.
7. Bond R.M., Fariss C.J., Jones J.J., Kramer A.D.I., Marlow C., Settle J.E., Fowler J.H. A61-million_person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 2012, 489:295-298.
8. Centola D. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 2010, 329:1194-1197.
9. Centola D. An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. Science 2011, 334:1269-1272.
10. Centola D. Social media and the science of health behavior. Circulation 2013, 127:2135-2144.
11. Centola D., Macy M. Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. Am. J. Sociol. 2007, 113:702-734.
12. Centola D., Gonzalez-Avella J.C., Eguiluz V., San Miguel M. Homophily, cultural drift, and the co-evolution of cultural groups. J.Confl. Resolut. 2007, 51:905-929.
13. Chou W.S., Hunt Y.M., Beckjord E.B., Moser R.P., Hesse B.W. Social media use in the United States: implications for health communication. J.Med. Internet Res. 2009, 11:e48.
14. Christakis N., Fowler J. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N.Engl. J. Med. 2007, 357:370-379.
15. Coleman J.S. Relational analysis: the study of social organizations with survey methods. Hum. Organ. 1958, 17:28-36.
16. Crosnoe R., Frank K., Mueller A.S. Gender, body size, and social relations in American high schools. Soc. Forces 2008, 86:1189-1216.
17. Currarini S., Jackson M.O., Pin P. An economic model of friendship: homophily, minorities, and segregation. Econometrica 2009, 77:1003-1045.
18. Dahlander L., McFarland D.A. Ties that last. Tie formation and persistence in research collaborations over time. Adm. Sci. Q. 2013, 58:69-110.
19. Fararo T.J., Sunshine M.H. AStudy of a Biased Friendship Network 1964, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY.
20. Feld S.L. Social structural determinants of similarity among adolescents. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1982, 47:797-801.
21. Festinger L. Atheory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 1954, 7:117-140.
22. Fogel J., Albert S.M., Schnabel F., Ditkoff B.A., Neugut A.I. Internet use and social support in women with breast cancer. Health Psychol. 2002, 21:398-404.
23. Fox S. The Social Life of Health Information 2011, Pew Research Center Report.
24. Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 1973, 78:1360-1380.
25. Hawn C. Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: how Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are reshaping health care. Health Aff. 2009, 28:361-368.
26. Hitsch G.J., Hortaçsu A., Ariely D. Matching and sorting in online dating. Am. Econ. Rev. 2010, 100:130-163.
27. Japuntich S.J., Zehner M.E., Smith S.S., Jorenby D.E., Valdez J.A., Fiore M.C., Baker T.B., Gustafson D.H. Smoking cessation via the internet: a randomized clinical trial of an internet intervention as adjuvant treatment in a smoking cessation intervention. Nicot. Tob. Res. 2006, 8:S59-S67.
28. Kalmijn M. Assortative mating by cultural and economic occupational status. Am. J. Sociol. 1994, 100:422-452.
29. Kalmijn M., Vermunt J. Homogeneity of social networks by age and marital status: a multilevel analysis of ego-centered networks. Soc. Netw. 2007, 29:25-43.
30. Kossinets G., Watts D.J. Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. Am. J. Sociol. 2009, 115:405-450.
31. Lazarsfeld P., Merton R.K. Friendship as a social process: a substantive and methodological analysis 1954, 18-66. Van Nostrand, New York. M. Berger, T. Abel, C.H. Page (Eds.).
32. Lewis K., Gonzalez M., Kaufman J. Social selection and peer influence in an online social network. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 2012, 109:68-72.
33. Luce R.D., Suppes P. Preference, utility, and subjective probability. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology 1965, vol. 3:249-410. Wiley, New York.
34. Mare R.D. Five decades of educational assortative mating. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1991, 56:15-32.
35. Marx K. Capital: a Critique of Political Economy 1977 [1867], vol. I. Penguin Books, London.
36. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
37. McNab C. What social media offers to health professionals and citizens. Bull. World Health Organ. 2009, 87:566.
38. McPherson M., Smith-Lovin L. Homophily in voluntary organizations: status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. Am. J. Sociol. 1987, 52:370-379.
39. McPherson M., Smith-Lovin L., Cook J. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2001, 27:415-444.
40. Mercken L., Snijders T.A.B., Steglich C., de Vries H. Dynamics of adolescent friendship networks and smoking behavior: social network analyses in six European countries. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009, 69:1506-1514.
41. Moody J. Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America. Am. J. Sociol. 2001, 107:679-716.
42. Mosteller F. Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: I. The least squares solution assuming equal standard deviations and equal correlations. Psychometrika 1951, 16:3-9.
43. Pampel F.C., Krueger P.M., Denney J.T. Socioeconomic disparities in health behaviors. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010, 36:349-370.
44. Popielarz P., McPherson M. On the edge or in between: niche position, niche overlap, and the duration of voluntary association membership. Am. J. Sociol. 1995, 101:698-720.
45. Rapoport A. Some problems relating to randomly constructed biased networks. Perspectives on Social Network Research 1979, 119-164. Academic Press, New York. P. Holland, S. Leinhardt (Eds.).
46. Robinson W.S. Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1950, 15:351-357.
47. Ruef M., Aldrich H.E., Carter N.M. The structure of founding teams: homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2003, 68:195-222.
48. Salathe M., Khandelwal S. Assessing vaccination sentiments with online social media: implications for infectious disease dynamics and control. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2011, 7:e1002199.
49. Schneeberger A., Mercer C.H., Gregson S.A., Ferguson N.M., Nyamukapa C.A., Anderson R.M., Johnson A.M., Garnett G.P. Sex. Transm. Dis. 2004, 31:380-387.
50. Shalizi C.R., Thomas A.C. Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociol. Methods Res. 2011, 40:211-239.
51. Steglich C., Snijders T.A.B., Pearson M. Dynamic networks and behavior: separating selection from influence. Sociol. Methodol. 2010, 40:329-393.
52. Thackeray R., Neiger B.L., Hanson C.L., McKenzie J.F. Enhancing promotional strategies within social marketing programs: use of Web 2.0 social media. Health Promot. Pract. 2008, 9:338-343.
53. Thurstone L.L. The method of paired comparisons for social values. J.Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1927, 21:384-400.
54. Van de Rijt A., Siegel D., Macy M. Neighborhood Chance and Neighborhood Change: A Comment on Bruch and Mare. Am. J. Sociol. 2009, 114:1166-1180.
55. Watts D. Small Worlds: the Dynamics of Networks Between Order and Randomness 1999, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
56. Weber M. Economy and Society 1978 [1922], University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
57. Wellman B. Physical place and cyber place: the rise of personalized networking. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2001, 25:227-252.
58. Wellman B., Hampton K. Living networked on and offline. Contemp. Sociol. 1999, 28:648-654.
59. White M., Dorman S.M. Receiving social support online: implications for health education. Health Educ. Res. 2001, 16:693-707.
60. Wimmer A., Lewis K. Beyond and below racial homophily: ERG models of a friendship network documented on Facebook. Am. J. Sociol. 2010, 116:583-642.
61. Yamaguchi K., Kandel D. Marital homophily on illicit drug use among young adults: assortative mating or marital influence?. Soc. Forces 1993, 72:505-528.
62. Young H.P. Individual Strategy and Social Structure: an Evolutionary Theory of Institutions 1998, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.