Cited by 2,575Social Media and PoliticsOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceComplex Network Analysis Techniques

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

Open access
Bond, Robert M., Fariss, Christopher J., Jones, Jason J., Kramer, Adam D. I., Marlow, Cameron, Settle, Jaime E., Fowler, James H.·2012·Nature

Abstract

Human behaviour is thought to spread through face-to-face social networks, but it is difficult to identify social influence effects in observational studies, and it is unknown whether online social networks operate in the same way. Here we report results from a randomized controlled trial of political mobilization messages delivered to 61 million Facebook users during the 2010 US congressional elections. The results show that the messages directly influenced political self-expression, information seeking and real-world voting behaviour of millions of people. Furthermore, the messages not only influenced the users who received them but also the users' friends, and friends of friends. The effect of social transmission on real-world voting was greater than the direct effect of the messages themselves, and nearly all the transmission occurred between 'close friends' who were more likely to have a face-to-face relationship. These results suggest that strong ties are instrumental for spreading both online and real-world behaviour in human social networks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature11421

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Social networks comprised of friends, family members and co-workers influence individuals' political attitudes and behaviour.

    “Social networks comprised of friends, family members and co-workers also influence individuals’ political attitudes and behaviour23,200–202.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [200]

    The Abstract reports that political mobilization messages influenced users’ voting behaviour and that the effect spread to friends, especially close friends. It also notes observational correlations in turnout among friends, family members and co-workers. The paper does not establish that these networks influence political attitudes, or experimentally show an effect through family members and co-workers. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Political messages on social media, as well as faster download speed, can increase information-seeking in the political domain.

    “In line with these findings, it has been reported that political messages on social media, as well as faster download speed, can increase information-seeking in the political domain67,71.”
  • Facebook's 2010 experiment with 61 million users changed real-world voting behaviour of millions of people for the US midterm elections.

    “Back in 2010, a company's experiment with 61 million users [81] resulted in changing the real-world voting behaviour of millions of people for the US midterm elections.”
  • Bond et al. conducted a 61 million person A/B-style experiment on Facebook to explore how message framing might influence voting behavior.

    “For example, Bond et al. conducted a 61 million person A/B-style experiment on Facebook to explore how message framing might influence voting behavior [52].”
  • Many large-scale studies have reported evidence of online ecosystems altering decision-making of crowds and influencing real-world voting of millions of people.

    “Many large-scale studies have reported evidence of online ecosystems altering decision-making of crowds [3] and influencing real-world voting of millions of people [4].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J. H.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Meta (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Fowler, James H.
Venue
Nature
Published
2012-09
Volume
489
Issue
7415
Pages
295-298
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2033198212
Cited by
2,575
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 84 · 2025: 114 · 2024: 157 · 2023: 176 · 2022: 193 · 2021: 248 · 2020: 271 · 2019: 204 · 2018: 238 · 2017: 193 · 2016: 214 · 2015: 194 · 2014: 155 · 2013: 110 · 2012: 16
FWCI
486.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P41GM103504)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
social influence, political mobilization, Facebook, voting behavior, social transmission, strong ties, weak ties, social networking sites, political communication, information seeking
MeSH terms
Humans, Persuasive Communication, Politics, Social Behavior, Sample Size, Internet, Social Networking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review