CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 137Complex Network Analysis TechniquesMisinformation and Its ImpactsSocial Media and Politics

How Visibility and Divided Attention Constrain Social Contagion

Open access
Hodas, Nathan Oken, Lerman, Kristina·2012·2012 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2012 International Confernece on Social Computing
DOI 10.1109/socialcom-passat.2012.129
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

How far and how fast does information spread in social media? Researchers have recently examined a number of factors that affect information diffusion in online social networks, including: the novelty of information, users' activity levels, who they pay attention to, and how they respond to friends' recommendations. Using URLs as markers of information, we carry out a detailed study of retweeting, the primary mechanism by which information spreads on the Twitter follower graph. Our empirical study examines how users respond to an incoming stimulus, i.e., a tweet (message) from a friend, and reveals that dynamically decaying visibility, which is the increasing cognitive effort required for discovering and acting upon a tweet, combined with limited attention play dominant roles in retweeting behavior. Specifically, we observe that users retweet information when it is most visible, such as when it near the top of their Twitter feed. Moreover, our measurements quantify how a user's limited attention is divided among incoming tweets, providing novel evidence that highly connected individuals are less likely to propagate an arbitrary tweet. Our study indicates that the finite ability to process incoming information constrains social contagion, and we conclude that rapid decay of visibility is the primary barrier to information propagation online.

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 · 10.1109/socialcom-passat.2012.129

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • Given the dynamic nature of social media, its large size, and individuals' finite ability to process incoming information, Twitter users should maximize the value of their online experience by choosing to follow political actors who can provide information of higher value to them.

    “Given the dynamic nature of social media, its large size, and individuals' finite ability to process incoming information (Oken Hodas and Lerman 2012), we should expect Twitter users to maximize the value of their online experience by choosing to follow political actors who can provide information that can be of higher value to them.”

    From Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data (2015) · cites this paper as Oken Hodas and Lerman 2012

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

3 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [11][11] B. Goncalves, N. Perra, and A. Vespignani, 'Validation of Dunbar's number in Twitter conversations,' arXiv.org , 2011. -
  2. [16][16] I. Kurniawan, M. Guitart-Masip, and R. Dolan, 'Dopamine and effortbased decision making,' Frontiers in neuroscience , vol. 5, 2011. -
  3. [32][32] S. Macskassy and M. Michelson, 'Why Do People Retweet? AntiHomophily Wins the Day!' Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media , pp. 209-216, 2011. -
  4. [35][35] M. E. J. Newman, 'Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law,' arXiv.org , vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 323-351, 2005. -
  5. [41][41] M. P. Rombach, M. A. Porter, J. H. Fowler, and P. J. Mucha, 'CorePeriphery Structure in Networks,' arXiv.org , vol. cs.SI, Feb. 2012. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hodas, N. O., & Lerman, K.
ORCID
Venue
2012 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2012 International Confernece on Social Computing
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2012-09
Pages
249-257
DOI
10.1109/socialcom-passat.2012.129
OpenAlex
W1965563190
Cited by
136
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 2
FWCI
13.80
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Conference on Social Computing (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
information dissemination, social contagion, retweets, Twitter, divided attention, cognitive effort, social networking sites, user attention

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