Skip to main content
×
Home

Selection and influence in cultural dynamics*

  • DAVID KEMPE (a1), JON KLEINBERG (a2), SIGAL OREN (a3) and ALEKSANDRS SLIVKINS (a4)
Abstract
Abstract

One of the fundamental principles driving diversity or homogeneity in domains such as cultural differentiation, political affiliation, and product adoption is the tension between two forces: influence (the tendency of people to become similar to others they interact with) and selection (the tendency to be affected most by the behavior of others who are already similar). Influence tends to promote homogeneity within a society, while selection frequently causes fragmentation. When both forces act simultaneously, it becomes an interesting question to analyze which societal outcomes should be expected.

To study this issue more formally, we analyze a natural stylized model built upon active lines of work in political opinion formation, cultural diversity, and language evolution. We assume that the population is partitioned into “types” according to some traits (such as language spoken or political affiliation). While all types of people interact with one another, only people with sufficiently similar types can possibly influence one another. The “similarity” is captured by a graph on types in which individuals of the same or adjacent types can influence one another. We achieve an essentially complete characterization of (stable) equilibrium outcomes and prove convergence from all starting states. We also consider generalizations of this model.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Selection and influence in cultural dynamics*
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Selection and influence in cultural dynamics*
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Selection and influence in cultural dynamics*
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

A one-page abstract of this work has appeared in ACM Conf. on Electronic Commerce, 2013.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Abrams D. M. & Strogatz Steven H. (2003). Modelling the dynamics of language death. Nature, 424, 900.
Anagnostopoulos A., Kumar R., & Mahdian M. (2008). Influence and correlation in social networks. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM sigkdd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 7–15.
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 USA, 106 (51), 2154421549.
Axelrod R. (1997). The dissemination of culture. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41 (2), 203226.
Bakshy E., Rosenn I., Marlow C. A., & Adamic L. A. (2012). The role of social networks in information diffusion. In Proceedings of the 21st International World Wide Web Conference.
Ben-Naim E., Krapivsky P., & Redner S. (2003). Bifurcations and patterns in compromise processes. Physica D, 183 (3), 190204.
Bramoullé Y., Djebbari H., & Fortin B. (2009). Identification of peer effects through social networks. Journal of Econometrics, 159, 4155.
Brandes U., & Erlebach T. (eds). (2005). Network analysis: Methodological foundations. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Castellano C., Fortunato S., & Loreto V. (2009). Statistical physics of social dynamics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81, 591646.
Centola D., Gonzalez-Avella J. C., Eguiluz V. M., & San Miguel M. (2007). Homophily, cultural drift, and the co-evolution of cultural groups. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51 (6), 905929.
Cohen J. M. (1977). Sources of peer group homogeneity. Sociology in Education, 50(Oct.), 227241.
Deffuant G., Neau D., Amblard F., & Weisbuch G. (2000). Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Advances in Complex Systems, 3, 8798.
Fortunato S. (2010). Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports, 486, 75174. Eprint arXiv: 0906.0612.
Handcock M. S., Raftery A. E., & Tantrum J. M. (2007). Model-based clustering for social networks (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 170, 301354.
Hegselmann R., & Krause U. (2002). Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: Models, analysis and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5 (3), 124.
Hoff P. D., Raftery A. E., & Handcock M. S. (2002). Latent space approaches to social network analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 10901098.
Kandel D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. American Journal of Sociology, 84 (2), 427436.
Kurtz T. G. (1970). Solutions of ordinary differential equations as limits of pure jump markov processes. Journal of Applied Probability, 7 (1), 4958.
LaFond T., & Neville J. (2010). Randomization tests for distinguishing social influence and homophily effects. InProceedings of the 19th International World Wide Web Conference, pp. 601–610.
McPherson M., Smith-Lovin L., & Cook J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415444.
Pariser E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
Patriarca M., & Leppanen T. (2004). Modeling language competition. Physica A, 338 (1–2), 296299.
Poole K., & Rosenthal H. (1991). Patterns of congressional voting. American Journal of Political Science, 35 (1), 228278.
Schaeffer S. E. (2007). Graph clustering. Computer Science Review, 1 (1), 2764.
Shalizi C. R., & Thomas A. C. (2011). Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociological Methods and Research, 40, 211239.
Snijders T. A. B., Steglich C., & Schweinberger M. (2007). Modeling the co-evolution of networks and behavior. In van Montfort K., Oud H., & Satorra A. (Eds.), Longitudinal models in the behavioral and related sciences (pp. 4171). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spector D. (2000). Rational debate and one-dimensional conflict. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (1), 181200.
Stauffer D., Castello X., Eguiluz V. M., & Miguel M. S. (2007). Microscopic Abrams-Strogatz model of language competition. Physica A, 374 (2), 835842.
Steglich C., Snijders Tom A.B., & Pearson M. (2010). Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology, 40, 329393.
Sunstein C. R. (2009). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wormald N. C. (1999). The differential equation method for random graph processes and greedy algorithms. In Karonski M., & Proemel H. (Eds.), Lectures on approximation and randomized algorithms (pp. 73155). PWN.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Network Science
  • ISSN: 2050-1242
  • EISSN: 2050-1250
  • URL: /core/journals/network-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 74 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 306 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.