Hostname: page-component-784d4fb959-2gr9v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-15T19:13:52.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diffusion and contagion in networks with heterogeneous agents and homophily

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2013

MATTHEW O. JACKSON  and
DUNIA LÓPEZ-PINTADO
MATTHEW O. JACKSON
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM, USA; and CIFAR, Canada (e-mail: jacksonm@stanford.edu)
DUNIA LÓPEZ-PINTADO
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla, Spain and CORE, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We study the diffusion of an idea, a product, a disease, a cultural fad, or a technology among agents in a social network that exhibits segregation or homophily (the tendency of agents to associate with others similar to themselves). Individuals are distinguished by their types—e.g., race, gender, age, wealth, religion, profession—which, together with biased interaction patterns, induce heterogeneous rates of adoption or infection. We identify the conditions under which a behavior or disease diffuses and becomes persistent in the population. These conditions relate to the level of homophily in a society and the underlying proclivities of various types for adoption or infection. In particular, we show that homophily can facilitate diffusion from a small initial seed of adopters.

Keywords

diffusionhomophilysegregationsocial networks

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , April 2013 , pp. 49 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aral, S., Muchnik, L., & Sundararajan, A. (2009). Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (51), 21544–21549.Google Scholar
Bailey, N. T. J. (1975). The mathematical theory of infectious diseases and its applications. London: Charles Griffin.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A., Chandrasekhar, A., Duflo, E., & Jackson, M. O. (2012). The diffusion of microfinance. Preprint.Google Scholar
Currarini, S., Jackson, M. O., & Pin, P. (2009). An economic model of friendship: Homophily, minorities and segregation. Econometrica, 77 (4), 1003–1045.Google Scholar
Galeotti, A., Goyal, S., Jackson, M. O., Vega-Redondo, F., & Yariv, L. (2010). Network games. The Review of Economic Studies, 77 (1), 218–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galeotti, A., & Rogers, B. (2012). Strategic immunization and group structure. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (in press).Google Scholar
Golub, B., & Jackson, M. O. (2012a). How homophily affects the speed of learning and best response dynamics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127 (3), 1287–1338.Google Scholar
Golub, B., & Jackson, M. O. (2012b). Does homophily predict consensus times? Testing a model of network structure via a dynamic process. Review of Network Economics, 11 (3), Article 9.Google Scholar
Golub, B., & Jackson, M. O. (2012c). Network structure and the speed of learning: Measuring homophily based on its consequences. Annals of Economics and Statistics, 107/108, 33–50.Google Scholar
Gómez-Gardeñes, J., Latora, V., Moreno, Y., & Profumo, E. (2008). Spreading of sexually transmitted diseases in heterosexual populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105 (5), 1399–1404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, M. O. (2008). Social and economic networks. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M. O., & >Rogers, B. W. (2007). Relating network structure to diffusion properties through stochastic dominance. The B.E. Press Journal of Theoretical Economics, 7 (1) (Advances), 1–13.Google Scholar
Jackson, M. O., & Yariv, L. (2005). Diffusion on social networks. Economie Publique, 16 (1), 69–82.Google Scholar
Jackson, M. O., & Yariv, L. (2007). Diffusion of behavior and equilibrium properties in network Games. The American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), 97 (2), 92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M. O., & Yariv, L. (2011). Diffusion, strategic interaction, and social structure. In Benhabib, J., Bisin, A., & Jackson, M. (Eds.), Handbook of social economics (pp. 33–50). The Netherlands: North Holland.Google Scholar
Jackson, M. O., & Zenou, Y. (2012). Games on networks. In Handbook of Game Theory (in press). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2136179.Google Scholar
López-Pintado, D. (2006). Contagion and coordination in random networks. International Journal of Game Theory, 34, 371–381.Google Scholar
López-Pintado, D. (2008). Diffusion in complex social networks. Games and Economic Behavior, 62, 573–590.Google Scholar
López-Pintado, D. (2012). Influence networks. Games and Economic Behavior, 75, 776–787.Google Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.Google Scholar
Newman, M. E. J. (2002). The spread of epidemic disease on networks. Physical Review E, 66, 016128.Google Scholar
Pastor-Satorras, R., & Vespignani, A. (2000). Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. Physical Review Letters, 86 (14), 3200–3203.Google Scholar
Pastor-Satorras, R., & Vespignani, A. (2001). Epidemic dynamics and endemic states in complex networks. Physical Review E, 63, 066117.Google Scholar
Reluga, T. C. (2009). An SIS epidemiology game with two subpopulations. Journal of Biological Dynamics, 3 (5), 515–531.Google Scholar