Cited by 571Social Media and PoliticsComplex Network Analysis TechniquesOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence

The dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network

Open access
González-Bailón, Sandra, Borge-Holthoefer, Javier, Rivero, Alejandro, Moreno, Yamir·2011·Scientific Reports

Abstract

The recent wave of mobilizations in the Arab world and across Western countries has generated much discussion on how digital media is connected to the diffusion of protests. We examine that connection using data from the surge of mobilizations that took place in Spain in May 2011. We study recruitment patterns in the Twitter network and find evidence of social influence and complex contagion. We identify the network position of early participants (i.e. the leaders of the recruitment process) and of the users who acted as seeds of message cascades (i.e. the spreaders of information). We find that early participants cannot be characterized by a typical topological position but spreaders tend to be more central in the network. These findings shed light on the connection between online networks, social contagion, and collective dynamics, and offer an empirical test to the recruitment mechanisms theorized in formal models of collective action.

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/srep00197

Cites

28 of 28 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kavanaugh A., Yang S., Sheetz S., Li L. T. & Fox E. Microblogging in Crisis Situations: Mass Protests in Iran, Tunisia, Egypt. ACM. CHI. (2011)
  2. Gaffney D. #iranElection: Quantifying Online Activism. ACM. WebSci. (2010).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
González-Bailón, S., Borge-Holthoefer, J., Rivero, A., & Moreno, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Universidad de Zaragoza (ES)
Corresponding author
González-Bailón, Sandra
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2011-12-15
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
197-197
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2003998314
Cited by
571
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 12
FWCI
100.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (CSD 2010-00034, FIS2009-13364-C02-01)
  • Gobierno de Aragón
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Keywords
social contagion, complex contagion, Twitter, online networks, collective action, network position, Arab Spring
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Theoretical, Politics, Time Factors, Internet, Information Dissemination, 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