Social contagion

Last updated
A visualization of social network analysis (SNA). In the 21st century, much of the study of social contagion involves online networks and communities. Social Network Analysis Visualization.png
A visualization of social network analysis (SNA). In the 21st century, much of the study of social contagion involves online networks and communities.

Social contagion involves behaviour, emotions, or conditions spreading spontaneously through a group or network. The phenomenon has been discussed by social scientists since the late 19th century, although much work on the subject was based on unclear or even contradictory conceptions of what social contagion is, so exact definitions vary. Some scholars include the unplanned spread of ideas through a population as social contagion, though others prefer to class that as memetics. Generally social contagion is understood to be separate from the collective behaviour which results from a direct attempt to exert social influence.

Contents

Two broad divisions of social contagion are behavioural contagion and emotional contagion. The study of social contagion has intensified in the 21st century. Much recent work involves academics from social psychology, sociology, and network science investigating online social networks. Studies in the 20th century typically focused on negative effects such as violent mob behaviour, whereas those of the 21st century, while sometimes looking at harmful effects, have often focused on relatively neutral or positive effects like the tendency for people to take action on climate change once a sufficient number of their neighbours do.

History

Gustave Le Bon, who first discussed behavioural contagion in 1895. Gustave Le Bon.jpg
Gustave Le Bon, who first discussed behavioural contagion in 1895.

Metaphoric use connecting the concept of infection with imitation ( mimesis ) dates back at least to Plato, and continued into medieval and early modern literature. The term "behavioural contagion" was first introduced into modern scholarship by Gustave Le Bon in his 1895 book The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind . Further scholarly works on the subject were at first released slowly, only one or two a decade until the 1950s. Herbert Blumer was the first to specifically use the term "social contagion”, in his 1939 paper on collective behavior, where he gave the dancing mania of the middle ages as a prominent example. From the 1950s, studies of social contagion began to investigate the phenomena empirically, and became more frequent. There was no widely shared definition of social contagion in the 20th century however, so many of the studies had little in common. In 1993, David A. Levy and Paul R. Nail published a review where they stated that social contagion captures the broadest sense of the phenomena, as opposed to subtypes like behavioural or emotional contagion. In a 1998 review, Paul Marsden suggested that social contagion is a similar phenomena to memetics, a field of study inspired by Richard Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish Gene . Marsden suggested that the two fields could be complementary, in the sense that work on social contagion largely lacked a coherent theory, but contained much evidence based analyses. Whereas memetics was rich in theory but lacking on the empirical side.

From the 1990s and into the 21st century, interest in social contagion grew rapidly, based in part on cross fertilisation with the then emerging field of network science, especially its application to the internet. [1] [2] [3] With respect to positive social contagions, a series of experiments and field trials since 2009 (by Nicholas Christakis and diverse collaborators) have shown that cascades of desirable behaviors can be induced in social groups, in settings as diverse as Honduras villages, [4] [5] [6] Indian slums, [7] online, [8] or in the lab [9] . Diverse other experiments have documented the social contagion of voting behavior, [10] emotions, [11] risk perception, [12] and diverse other phenomena. [13] [14]

Definition

Scholars have long reported that the study of social contagion has suffered from the lack of a widely accepted and precise definition. Definitions have often, though not always, classified social contagion as a method of transmission that does not rely on a direct intent to influence. Other definitions have suggested that social contagion involves spontaneous imitation of others, rather than being based on conscious decisions. [note 1] In their 1993 review, Levy and Nail proposed that social contagion should be defined as the spread of affect, attitude or behaviour "where the recipient does not perceive an intentional influence attempt on the part of the initiator". [1] [3] [2] [15]

Typology

Forms of social contagion have been studied with different social species, such as gorillas. Kbnpsilverbackandchild.jpg
Forms of social contagion have been studied with different social species, such as gorillas.

Various typologies have been proposed for social contagion. [1] [2] [16]

By what is being transmitted

Social contagion can be broadly split into behavioural contagion and emotional contagion. The spread of ideas is sometimes considered a third broad category, though that is often considered part of memetics. Paul Marsden has said behavioural contagion can be split into six subcategories: hysterical contagions, deliberate self-harm contagions, contagions of aggression, rule violation contagions, consumer behaviour contagions, and financial contagions. [2] [16] [3]

By causal pathway

Three main causes of social contagion have been proposed: disinhibitory contagion, echo contagion, and hysterical contagion. [1] Disinhibitory contagion involves a type of behaviour that the person already has some desire to engage in, but from which normally they would refrain due to a desire to comply with social norms. When they witness others in the crowd performing the behaviour, this can break the inhibitory effect. [1] Echo contagion represents the spontaneous imitation of a behaviour, or transition into conformance with an emotional state shared by others. [1] Hysterical contagion represents the unwanted transmission of a behaviour, emotion or affect among a group by unknown means. Unlike with echo or disinhibitory contagion, what is being transmitted may in no way be desirable or attractive, yet it transmits anyway. [1]

By cardinality of exposure

Social contagion can be examined with threshold models based on how much exposure an individual needs before transmission of a behaviour or emotion occurs. Some models assume an individual needs to be convinced by a fraction of their social contacts above a given threshold to adopt a novel behaviour. [17] Therefore, the number of exposures will not increase chances of contagion unless the number of source exposures pass a certain threshold. The threshold value can divide contagion processes to two types: simple contagion and complex contagion. [18] [19] In simple contagion, an individual only needs a single exposure to the new behaviour. For instance, cars travel in groups on a two-lane highway since the car in each cluster travels at a slower speed than the car behind it. This relative speed spreads through other cars who slow down to match the speed of the car in front. [17] In complex contagion, the individual needs to be in contact with two or more sources exhibiting the novel behaviour. [20] This is when copying behaviours needs reinforcement or encouragement from multiple sources. Multiple sources, especially close friends, can make imitation legitimate, credible and worthwhile due to collective effort put in. Examples of complex contagions include a New York University School of Business study in California which found that households were more likely to install solar panels in neighborhoods that already had them, and that the rate of installation increases with more and more installations, creating a chain reaction that added up to a significant increase in solar adoption. [21] Other examples can be copying risky behaviour or joining social movements and riots. [18]

Positive contagions

Much early work on social contagion looked only at harmful effects, in keeping with the infectious disease metaphor. Yet towards the end of the 20th century, and especially in the 21st, scholars began to look at neutral and positive contagion. For example, the rippling of happiness through a social network, up to three degrees of separation from the initiator. The contagion effect of happiness is also strongly influenced by physical proximity. Research based on the Framingham Heart Study found that if one has a happy friend living no more than a mile away, they are 25% more likely to be happy, whereas one is 34% more likely to be happy with a happy next-door neighbour. [22] Work has been done to understand social contagion as a way to encourage positive behaviour, as a possible complement to nudge theory. It has been suggested as a way to assist in the rehabilitation of criminals and drug addicts, and as something that can encourage the adoption of climate friendly behaviour. Such as the increased tendency to install solar panels on one's personal home once a portion of one's neighbours have already done so. [23] [24] [25]

Mental health

Inside the scientific community the influence of social contagion of mental disorders like anxiety and depression is a topic of debate. [26]

Criticism

The field of social contagion has been repeatedly criticized for lacking a clear and widely accepted definition, even though any area of research is marked by definitional variation, and for sometimes involving work that does not distinguish between contagion and other forms of social influence, like command and compliance, or from the otherwise also diffuse concept of homophily. [15] However, large-scale experiments and field trials can evade this concern, and can document social contagion. In social network analysis and related network science fields, the contagion metaphor has been described as potentially misleading in various ways. For example, an actual virus can affect someone after a single exposure, whereas typically with social contagion, people need several exposures before adopting the new behavior or emotion. [27] This relates, however, to the concept of complex contagion in network science. Some scholars (e.g., Ralph H. Turner) have suggested that certain types of collective behaviour are better understood by emergent norm theory or convergence theory, rather than by social contagion. [2]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Though some definitions have stated that contagion is distinct from imitation, see Levy and Nail (1993).

Related Research Articles

A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme. A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures. In popular language, a meme may refer to an Internet meme, typically an image, that is remixed, copied, and circulated in a shared cultural experience online.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Empathy</span> Capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing

Empathy is generally described as the ability to take on another's perspective, to understand, feel, and possibly share and respond to their experience. There are more definitions of empathy that include but are not limited to social, cognitive, and emotional processes primarily concerned with understanding others. Often times, empathy is considered to be a broad term, and broken down into more specific concepts and types that include cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, somatic empathy, and spiritual empathy.

Social influence comprises the ways in which individuals adjust their behavior to meet the demands of a social environment. It takes many forms and can be seen in conformity, socialization, peer pressure, obedience, leadership, persuasion, sales, and marketing. Typically social influence results from a specific action, command, or request, but people also alter their attitudes and behaviors in response to what they perceive others might do or think. In 1958, Harvard psychologist Herbert Kelman identified three broad varieties of social influence.

  1. Compliance is when people appear to agree with others but actually keep their dissenting opinions private.
  2. Identification is when people are influenced by someone who is liked and respected, such as a famous celebrity.
  3. Internalization is when people accept a belief or behavior and agree both publicly and privately.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">Imitation</span> Behaviour in which an individual observes and replicates anothers behaviour

Imitation is a behavior whereby an individual observes and replicates another's behavior. Imitation is also a form of that leads to the "development of traditions, and ultimately our culture. It allows for the transfer of information between individuals and down generations without the need for genetic inheritance." The word imitation can be applied in many contexts, ranging from animal training to politics. The term generally refers to conscious behavior; subconscious imitation is termed mirroring.

A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an organism acts and when the organism observes the same action performed by another. Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. Mirror neurons are not always physiologically distinct from other types of neurons in the brain; their main differentiating factor is their response patterns. By this definition, such neurons have been directly observed in humans and primate species, and in birds.

Herd mentality is the tendency for people’s behavior or beliefs to conform to those of the group they belong to. The concept of herd mentality has been studied and analyzed from different perspectives, including biology, psychology and sociology. This psychological phenomenon can have profound impacts on human behavior.

Emotional contagion is a form of social contagion that involves the spontaneous spread of emotions and related behaviors. Such emotional convergence can happen from one person to another, or in a larger group. Emotions can be shared across individuals in many ways, both implicitly or explicitly. For instance, conscious reasoning, analysis, and imagination have all been found to contribute to the phenomenon. The behaviour has been found in humans, other primates, dogs, and chickens.

Animal culture can be defined as the ability of non-human animals to learn and transmit behaviors through processes of social or cultural learning. Culture is increasingly seen as a process, involving the social transmittance of behavior among peers and between generations. It can involve the transmission of novel behaviors or regional variations that are independent of genetic or ecological factors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James H. Fowler</span>

James H. Fowler is an American social scientist specializing in social networks, cooperation, political participation, and genopolitics. He is currently Professor of Medical Genetics in the School of Medicine and Professor of Political Science in the Division of Social Science at the University of California, San Diego. He was named a 2010 Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation.

Group emotion refers to the moods, emotions and dispositional affects of a group of people. It can be seen as either an emotional entity influencing individual members' emotional states or the sum of the individuals' emotional states.

Behavioral contagion is a form of social contagion involving the spread of behavior through a group. It refers to the propensity for a person to copy a certain behavior of others who are either in the vicinity, or whom they have been exposed to. The term was originally used by Gustave Le Bon in his 1895 work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind to explain undesirable aspects of behavior of people in crowds. In the digital age, behavioral contagion is also concerned with the spread of online behavior and information. A variety of behavioral contagion mechanisms were incorporated in models of collective human behavior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nicholas Christakis</span> American physician and sociologist (born 1962)

Nicholas A. Christakis is a Greek-American sociologist and physician known for his research on social networks and on the socioeconomic, biosocial, and evolutionary determinants of human welfare. He is the Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Science at Yale University, where he directs the Human Nature Lab. He is also the co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Friendship paradox</span> Phenomenon that most people have fewer friends than their friends have, on average

The friendship paradox is the phenomenon first observed by the sociologist Scott L. Feld in 1991 that on average, an individual's friends have more friends than that individual. It can be explained as a form of sampling bias in which people with more friends are more likely to be in one's own friend group. In other words, one is less likely to be friends with someone who has very few friends. In contradiction to this, most people believe that they have more friends than their friends have.

Complex contagion is the phenomenon in social networks in which multiple sources of exposure to an innovation are required before an individual adopts the change of behavior. It differs from simple contagion in that unlike a disease, it may not be possible for the innovation to spread after only one incident of contact with an infected neighbor. The spread of complex contagion across a network of people may depend on many social and economic factors; for instance, how many of one's friends adopt the new idea as well as how many of them cannot influence the individual, as well as their own disposition in embracing change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social network</span> Social structure made up of a set of social actors

A social network is a social structure made up of a set of social actors, sets of dyadic ties, and other social interactions between actors. The social network perspective provides a set of methods for analyzing the structure of whole social entities as well as a variety of theories explaining the patterns observed in these structures. The study of these structures uses social network analysis to identify local and global patterns, locate influential entities, and examine network dynamics.

Three Degrees of Influence is a theory in the realm of social networks, proposed by Nicholas A. Christakis and James H. Fowler in 2007. It has since been explored by scientists in numerous disciplines using diverse statistical, psychological, sociological, and biological approaches. Numerous large-scale experiments have also documented this phenomenon in the intervening years.

Social determinism is the theory that social interactions alone determine individual behavior.

Imitative learning is a type of social learning whereby new behaviors are acquired via imitation. Imitation aids in communication, social interaction, and the ability to modulate one's emotions to account for the emotions of others, and is "essential for healthy sensorimotor development and social functioning". The ability to match one's actions to those observed in others occurs in humans and animals; imitative learning plays an important role in humans in cultural development. Imitative learning is different from observational learning in that it requires a duplication of the behaviour exhibited by the model, whereas observational learning can occur when the learner observes an unwanted behaviour and its subsequent consequences and as a result learns to avoid that behaviour.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Damon Centola</span> Researcher in network science and related at the University of Pennsylvania

Damon Centola is a sociologist and the Elihu Katz Professor of Communication, Sociology and Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania, where he is Director of the Network Dynamics Group and Senior Fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics.

Over the last fifty years, there has been an increase in the different types of media that are accessible to the public. Most people use online search engines, social media, or other online news outlets to find out what is going on in the world. This increase can lead to people easily viewing negative images and stories about traumatic events that they would not have been exposed to otherwise. One thing to consider is how the dissemination of this information may be impacting the mental health of people who identify with the victims of the violence they hear and see through the media. The viewing of these traumatic videos and stories can lead to the vicarious traumatization of the viewers.  

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 David A. Levy , Paul R. Nail (1993). "Contagion: A Theoretical and Empirical Review and Reconceptualization". Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs . 119 (2): 233–84. PMID   8405969.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Paul Marsden (1998). "Memetics and Social Contagion: Two Sides of the Same Coin?". Journal of Memetics. 2 (2): 171–185.
  3. 1 2 3 Peta Michell (2012). "1, 3". Contagious Metaphor. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN   978-1472521620.
  4. ↑ Kim, David A.; Hwong, Alison R.; Stafford, Derek; Hughes, D. Alex; O'Malley, A. James; Fowler, James H.; Christakis, Nicholas A. (2015-07-11). "Social network targeting to maximise population behaviour change: a cluster randomised controlled trial". Lancet. 386 (9989): 145–153. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60095-2. ISSN   1474-547X. PMC   4638320 . PMID   25952354.
  5. ↑ Airoldi, Edoardo M.; Christakis, Nicholas A. (2024-05-03). "Induction of social contagion for diverse outcomes in structured experiments in isolated villages". Science. 384 (6695): eadi5147. doi:10.1126/science.adi5147. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   38696582.
  6. ↑ Shakya, Holly B; Stafford, Derek; Hughes, D Alex; Keegan, Thomas; Negron, Rennie; Broome, Jai; McKnight, Mark; Nicoll, Liza; Nelson, Jennifer; Iriarte, Emma; Ordonez, Maria; Airoldi, Edo; Fowler, James H; Christakis, Nicholas A (March 2017). "Exploiting social influence to magnify population-level behaviour change in maternal and child health: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of network targeting algorithms in rural Honduras". BMJ Open. 7 (3): e012996. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012996. ISSN   2044-6055. PMC   5353315 . PMID   28289044.
  7. ↑ Alexander, Marcus; Forastiere, Laura; Gupta, Swati; Christakis, Nicholas A. (2022-07-26). "Algorithms for seeding social networks can enhance the adoption of a public health intervention in urban India". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (30): e2120742119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11920742A. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2120742119 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   9335263 . PMID   35862454.
  8. ↑ Rand D, Arbesman S, and Christakis NA,"Dynamic Social Networks Promote Cooperation in Experiments with Humans," PNAS:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2011; 108: 19193-19198
  9. ↑ Fowler, James H.; Christakis, Nicholas A. (2010). "Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (12): 5334–5338. arXiv: 0908.3497 . Bibcode:2010PNAS..107.5334F. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0913149107 . PMC   2851803 . PMID   20212120.
  10. ↑ Bond, RM; Fariss, CJ; Jones, JJ; Kramer, ADI; Marlow, C; Settle, JE; Fowler, JH (2012). "A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization". Nature. 489 (7415): 295–298. Bibcode:2012Natur.489..295B. doi:10.1038/nature11421. PMC   3834737 . PMID   22972300.
  11. ↑ Kramer, ADI; Guillory, JE; Hancock, JT (2014). "Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (24): 8788–8790. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.8788K. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320040111 . PMC   4066473 . PMID   24889601.
  12. ↑ Moussaid, M; Brighton, H; Gaissmaier, W (2015). "The amplification of risk in experimental diffusion chains" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (18): 5631–5636. arXiv: 1504.05331 . Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.5631M. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1421883112 . PMC   4426405 . PMID   25902519.
  13. ↑ Centola, Damon (2010). "The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment". Science. 329 (5995): 1194–1197. Bibcode:2010Sci...329.1194C. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.701.3842 . doi:10.1126/science.1185231. PMID   20813952. S2CID   3265637.
  14. ↑ Aral, Sinan; Walker, Dylan (2011). "Creating Social Contagion Through Viral Product Design: A Randomized Trial of Peer Influence in Networks". Management Science. 57 (9): 1623–1639. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1421.
  15. 1 2 Cosma Rohilla Shalizi, Andrew C. Thomas (2011). "Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies". Sociological Methods & Research . 40 (2): 211–239. doi:10.1177/0049124111404820. PMC   3328971 . PMID   22523436.
  16. 1 2 Stephen G. Harkins; Kipling D. Williams; Jerry M. Burger, eds. (2017). "7 , 23". The Oxford Handbook of Social Influence. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0199859870.
  17. 1 2 Centola, Damon; Macy, Michael (2007). "Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties". American Journal of Sociology. 113 (3): 702–734. doi:10.1086/521848. JSTOR   10.1086/521848. S2CID   7298238.
  18. 1 2 Centola, Damon; Macy, Michael (2007). "Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties". American Journal of Sociology. 113 (3): 702–734. doi:10.1086/521848. JSTOR   10.1086/521848. S2CID   7298238.
  19. ↑ Böttcher, L.; Nagler, J.; Herrmann, H. J. (23 February 2017). "Critical Behaviors in Contagion Dynamics". Physical Review Letters. 118 (8): 088301. arXiv: 1701.08988 . Bibcode:2017PhRvL.118h8301B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.088301. PMC   7219437 . PMID   28282207.
  20. ↑ Iacopini, Iacopo; Petri, Giovanni; Barrat, Alain; Latora, Vito (2019). "Simplicial models of social contagion". Nature Communications. 10 (1): 2485. arXiv: 1810.07031 . Bibcode:2019NatCo..10.2485I. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10431-6. PMC   6554271 . PMID   31171784.
  21. ↑ Einhorn, Laura. "Normative Social Influence on Meat Consumption". MPG.PuRe. Max Planck Society. Retrieved 22 February 2024.
  22. ↑ Robin Dunbar; Danilo Bzdok (2020). "The Neurobiology of Social Distance". Trends in Cognitive Sciences . 24 (9): 717–733. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.016 . PMC   7266757 . PMID   32561254.
  23. ↑ David Best (2019). "8, passim". Pathways to Recovery and Desistance: The Role of the Social Contagion of Hope. Policy Press. ISBN   978-1-4473-4930-3.
  24. ↑ Nicholas Christakis; James H. Fowler (2013). "Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior". Statistics in Medicine . 32 (4): 556–577. doi:10.1002/sim.5408. PMC   3830455 . PMID   22711416.
  25. ↑ Per Espen Stoknes (September 2017). How to transform apocalypse fatigue into action on global warming. TED (conference) . Retrieved 6 March 2021.
  26. ↑ Eisenberg, Daniel; Golberstein, Ezra; Whitlock, Janis L.; Downs, Marilyn F. (August 2013). "SOCIAL CONTAGION OF MENTAL HEALTH: EVIDENCE FROM COLLEGE ROOMMATES: CONTAGION OF MENTAL HEALTH". Health Economics. 22 (8) (published 11 October 2012): 965–986. doi:10.1002/hec.2873. PMC   4381550 . PMID   23055446.
  27. ↑ Ryan Light and James Moody, ed. (2021). "16". The Oxford Handbook of Social Networks. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0190251765.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.