Literature DB >> 27382145

Estimating peer effects in networks with peer encouragement designs.

Dean Eckles1, René F Kizilcec2, Eytan Bakshy3.   

Abstract

Peer effects, in which the behavior of an individual is affected by the behavior of their peers, are central to social science. Because peer effects are often confounded with homophily and common external causes, recent work has used randomized experiments to estimate effects of specific peer behaviors. These experiments have often relied on the experimenter being able to randomly modulate mechanisms by which peer behavior is transmitted to a focal individual. We describe experimental designs that instead randomly assign individuals' peers to encouragements to behaviors that directly affect those individuals. We illustrate this method with a large peer encouragement design on Facebook for estimating the effects of receiving feedback from peers on posts shared by focal individuals. We find evidence for substantial effects of receiving marginal feedback on multiple behaviors, including giving feedback to others and continued posting. These findings provide experimental evidence for the role of behaviors directed at specific individuals in the adoption and continued use of communication technologies. In comparison, observational estimates differ substantially, both underestimating and overestimating effects, suggesting that researchers and policy makers should be cautious in relying on them.

Entities:  

Keywords:  causal inference; experimental design; social interactions; social networks

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27382145      PMCID: PMC4941475          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1511201113

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  13 in total

1.  A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement.

Authors:  M DEUTSCH; H B GERARD
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  1955-11

2.  Structural diversity in social contagion.

Authors:  Johan Ugander; Lars Backstrom; Cameron Marlow; Jon Kleinberg
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-04-02       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment.

Authors:  Damon Centola
Journal:  Science       Date:  2010-09-03       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks.

Authors:  Sinan Aral; Dylan Walker
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market.

Authors:  Matthew J Salganik; Peter Sheridan Dodds; Duncan J Watts
Journal:  Science       Date:  2006-02-10       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization.

Authors:  Robert M Bond; Christopher J Fariss; Jason J Jones; Adam D I Kramer; Cameron Marlow; Jaime E Settle; James H Fowler
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-09-13       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 7.  Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior.

Authors:  Nicholas A Christakis; James H Fowler
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-06-18       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies.

Authors:  Cosma Rohilla Shalizi; Andrew C Thomas
Journal:  Sociol Methods Res       Date:  2011-05

9.  The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network.

Authors:  Nicholas A Christakis; James H Fowler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-05-22       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years.

Authors:  Nicholas A Christakis; James H Fowler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-07-25       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  5 in total

1.  Drawing causal inference from Big Data.

Authors:  Richard M Shiffrin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Studying human attention on the Internet.

Authors:  David Lazer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review.

Authors:  Andrew Tomkins; Min Zhang; William D Heavlin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  A computational reward learning account of social media engagement.

Authors:  Björn Lindström; Martin Bellander; David T Schultner; Allen Chang; Philippe N Tobler; David M Amodio
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 14.919

5.  Affective stimuli in behavioural interventions soliciting for health check-up services and the service users' socioeconomic statuses: a study at Japanese pachinko parlours.

Authors:  Naoki Kondo; Yoshiki Ishikawa
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 3.710

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.