CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 305Computational and Text Analysis MethodsDigital Humanities and ScholarshipMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation

Computational Social Science and Sociology

Open access
Edelmann, Achim, Wolff, Tom, Montagne, Danielle, Bail, Christopher A.·2020·Annual Review of Sociology
DOI 10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054621PMC PMC8612450
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The integration of social science with computer science and engineering fields has produced a new area of study: computational social science. This field applies computational methods to novel sources of digital data such as social media, administrative records, and historical archives to develop theories of human behavior. We review the evolution of this field within sociology via bibliometric analysis and in-depth analysis of the following subfields where this new work is appearing most rapidly: ( a) social network analysis and group formation; ( b) collective behavior and political sociology; ( c) the sociology of knowledge; ( d) cultural sociology, social psychology, and emotions; ( e) the production of culture; ( f) economic sociology and organizations; and ( g) demography and population studies. Our review reveals that sociologists are not only at the center of cutting-edge research that addresses longstanding questions about human behavior but also developing new lines of inquiry about digital spaces as well. We conclude by discussing challenging new obstacles in the field, calling for increased attention to sociological theory, and identifying new areas where computational social science might be further integrated into mainstream sociology.

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 · 10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054621

Cites

7 of 7 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?

  • In quantitative sociology, CSS has had a major impact across the board, overtaking fields like social network analysis and group formation, collective behavior and political sociology, the sociology of knowledge, cultural sociology, social psychology, and emotions, the production of culture, economic sociology and organizations, and demography and population studies.

    “In quantitative sociology, CSS has had a major impact across the board, overtaking fields like social network analysis and group formation, collective behavior and political sociology, the sociology of knowledge, cultural sociology, social psychology, and emotions, the production of culture, economic sociology and organizations, and demography and population studies (Edelmann et al. 2020).”

    From Computational Social Science of Social Cohesion and Polarization (2026) · cites this paper as Edelmann et al. 2020

    The Introduction says CSS is spreading rapidly and identifies the seven listed areas as subfields with at least five qualifying studies. It does not say CSS is 'overtaking' those fields or has had an impact 'across the board'; the Conclusion says it has not yet been broadly integrated into many other large sociology subfields. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 69

  1. adams J, Light R. 2015. Scientific consensus, the law, and same sex parenting outcomes. Soc. Sci. Res 53: 300– 10 26188455
  2. Araujo M, Mejova Y, Weber I, Benevenuto F. 2017. Using Facebook ads audiences for global lifestyle disease surveillance: promises and limitations ArXiv:1705.04045 [cs.CY] · arXiv
  3. Askarisichani O, Lane JN, Bullo F, Friedkin NE, Singh AK, Uzzi B. 2019. Structural balance emerges and explains performance in risky decision-making. Nat. Commun 10: 2648 31201322 PMC6572859
  4. Bail CA. 2015. Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  5. Bail CA. 2016a. Combining natural language processing and network analysis to examine how advocacy organizations stimulate conversation on social media. PNAS 113: 11823– 28 27694580 PMC5081586
  6. Bail CA. 2016b. Cultural carrying capacity: organ donation advocacy, discursive framing, and social media engagement. Soc. Sci. Med 165: 280– 88 26879407
  7. Bail CA. 2016c. Emotional feedback and the viral spread of social media messages about autism spectrum disorders. Am. J. Public Health 106: 1173– 80 27196641 PMC4984751
  8. Bail CA, Merhout F, Ding P. 2018a. Using Internet search data to examine the relationship between anti-Muslim and pro-ISIS sentiment in U.S. counties. Sci. Adv 4: eaao5948 29881772 PMC5990314
  9. Becker J, Porter E, Centola D. 2019. The wisdom of partisan crowds. PNAS 116: 10717– 22 31085635 PMC6561169
  10. Brayne S 2020. Policing Data. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
  11. Bruch E, Atwell J. 2015. Agent-based models in empirical social research. Sociol. Methods Res 44: 186– 221 25983351 PMC4430112
  12. Bruch E, Feinberg F, Lee KY. 2016. Extracting multistage screening rules from online dating activity data. PNAS 113: 10530– 35 27578870 PMC5035909
  13. Bruch E, Newman MEJ. 2018. Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets. Sci. Adv 4: eaap9815 30101188 PMC6082652
  14. Centola D 2010. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329: 1194– 97 20813952
  15. Centola D, Baronchelli A. 2015. The spontaneous emergence of conventions: an experimental study of cultural evolution. PNAS 112: 1989– 94 25646462 PMC4343158
  16. Centola D, Becker J, Brackbill D, Baronchelli A. 2018. Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention. Science 360: 1116– 19 29880688
  17. Cesare N, Lee H, McCormick T, Spiro E, Zagheni E. 2018. Promises and pitfalls of using digital traces for demographic research. Demography 55: 1979– 99 30276667 PMC6292527
  18. Chen Y, Yan F. 2016. Economic performance and public concerns about social class in twentieth-century books. Soc. Sci. Res 59: 37– 51 27480370
  19. de Vaan M, Stark D, Vedres B. 2015. Game changer: the topology of creativity. Am. J. Sociol 120: 1144– 94 26046227
  20. DellaPosta D, Shi Y, Macy M. 2015. Why do liberals drink lattes? Am. J. Sociol 120: 1473– 511 26421344
  21. Dodds PS, Muhamad R, Watts DJ. 2003. An experimental study of search in global social networks. Science 301: 827– 29 12907800
  22. Eagle N, Macy M, Claxton R. 2010. Network diversity and economic development. Science 328: 1029– 31 20489022
  23. Edelmann A, Moody J, Light R. 2017. Disparate foundations of scientists’ policy positions on contentious biomedical research. PNAS 114: 6262– 67 28559310 PMC5474814
  24. Evans JA, Foster JG. 2011. Metaknowledge. Science 331: 721– 25 21311014
  25. Farrell J 2016a. Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. PNAS 113: 92– 97 26598653 PMC4711825
  26. Feinberg M, Willer R. 2015. From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull 41: 1665– 81 26445854
  27. Gebru R, Krause J, Wang Y, Chen D, Deng J, 2017. Using deep learning and Google street view to estimate the demographic makeup of neighborhoods across the United States. PNAS 114: 13108– 13 29183967 PMC5740675
  28. Guilbeault D, Becker J, Centola D. 2018. Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends. PNAS 115: 9714– 19 30181271 PMC6166837
  29. Helbing D, Farkas, Vicsek T. 2000. Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature 407: 487– 90 11028994
  30. Hobbs WR, Burke M, Christakis NA, Fowler JH. 2016. Online social integration is associated with reduced mortality risk. PNAS 113: 12980– 84 27799553 PMC5135317
  31. Horvát EÁ, Uparna J, Uzzi B. 2015. Network versus market relations: the effect of friends in crowdfunding. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2015—ASONAM ‘15, ed. Pei J, Silvestri F, Tang J, pp. 226– 33. New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
  32. Kaplanis J, Gordon A, Shor T, Weissbrod O, Geiger D, 2018. Quantitative analysis of population-scale family trees with millions of relatives. Science 360: 171– 75 29496957 PMC6593158
  33. Kashyap R, Villavicencio F. 2016. The dynamics of son preference, technology diffusion, and fertility decline underlying distorted sex ratios at birth: a simulation approach. Demography 53: 1261– 81 27638765 PMC5566175
  34. Kitts JA, Lomi A, Mascia D, Pallotti F, Quintane E. 2017. Investigating the temporal dynamics of interorganizational exchange: patient transfers among Italian hospitals. Am. J. Sociol 123: 850– 910 PMC8302044 34305150
  35. Kossinets G, Watts DJ. 2006. Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science 311: 88– 90 16400149
  36. Lazer D, Pentland A, Adamic L, Aral S, Barabasi AL, 2009. Computational social science. Science 323: 721– 23 19197046 PMC2745217
  37. Lewis K 2013. The limits of racial prejudice. PNAS 110: 18814– 19 24191008 PMC3839718
  38. Li J, Yin Y, Fortunato S, Wang D. 2019. A dataset of publication records for Nobel laureates. Sci. Data 6: 33 31000709 PMC6472427
  39. Liu B, Govindan R, Uzzi B. 2016. Do emotions expressed online correlate with actual changes in decision-making?: The case of stock day traders. PLOS ONE 11: e0144945 26765539 PMC4713085
  40. Lundberg I, Narayanan A, Levy K, Salganik MJ. 2018. Privacy, ethics, and data access: a case study of the Fragile Families Challenge. ArXiv:1809.00103 [cs.CY] PMC10284584 37347012 · arXiv
  41. Ma Y, Uzzi B. 2018. Scientific prize network predicts who pushes the boundaries of science. PNAS 115(50): 12608– 15 30530666 PMC6294901
  42. Macy MW. 2016. An emerging trend: Is big data the end of theory? In Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Scott RA, Kosslyn S, pp. 1– 14. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
  43. McCormick RH, Lee H, Cesare N, Shojaie A, Spiro ES. 2017. Using Twitter for demographic and social science research: tools for data collection and processing. Sociol. Methods Res 46: 390– 421 29033471 PMC5639727
  44. Moreno MA, Christakis DA, Egan KG, Brockman LN, Becker R. 2012. Associations between displayed alcohol references on Facebook and problem drinking among college students. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med 166: 157– 63 21969360 PMC3266463
  45. Ojala J, Zagheni E, Billari FC, Weber I. 2017. Fertility and its meaning: evidence from search behavior. ArXiv:1703.03935 [cs.CY] · arXiv
  46. Palmer JRB, Espenshade TJ, Bartumeus F, Chung CY, Ozgencil NE, Li K. 2013. New approaches to human mobility: using mobile phones for demographic research. Demography 50: 1105– 28 23192393 PMC3633623
  47. Park PS, Blumenstock JE, Macy MW. 2018. The strength of long-range ties in population-scale social networks. Science 362(6421): 1410– 13 30573627
  48. Pentland A 2015. Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter. New York, NY: Penguin Books
  49. Rampazzo F, Zagheni E, Weber I, Testa MR, Billari F. 2018. Mater certa est, pater numquam: What can Facebook advertising data tell us about male fertility rates? ArXiv:1804.04632 [cs.CY] · arXiv
  50. Romero DM, Swaab RI, Uzzi B, Galinsky AD. 2015. Mimicry is presidential: linguistic style matching in presidential debates and improved polling numbers. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull 41: 1311– 19 26195626
  51. Rzhetsky A, Foster JG, Foster IT, Evans JA. 2015. Choosing experiments to accelerate collective discovery. PNAS 112: 14569– 74 26554009 PMC4664375
  52. Saavedra S, Duch J, Uzzi B. 2011a. Tracking traders’ understanding of the market using e-communication data. PLOS ONE 6: e26705 22046335 PMC3201971
  53. Saavedra S, Hagerty K, Uzzi B. 2011b. Synchronicity, instant messaging, and performance among financial traders. PNAS 108: 5296– 301 21402941 PMC3069203
  54. Salganik M 2018. Bit by Bit: Social Research in the Digital Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  55. Salganik MJ, Lundberg I, Kindel AT, Ahearn CE, Al-Ghoneim K, 2020. Measuring the predictability of life outcomes with a scientific mass collaboration. PNAS. 10.1073/pnas.1915006117 PMC7165437 32229555 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Salganik MJ, Watts DJ. 2008. Leading the herd astray: an experimental study of self-fulfilling prophecies in an artificial cultural market. Soc. Psychol. Q 71: 338– 55 PMC3785310 24078078
  57. Schroeder R 2010. Being There Together: Social Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  58. Shirado H, Christakis NA. 2017. Locally noisy autonomous agents improve global human coordination in network experiments. Nature 545: 370– 74 28516927 PMC5912653
  59. Shirado H, Iosifidis G, Tassiulas L, Christakis NA. 2019. Resource sharing in technologically defined social networks. Nat. Commun 10: 1079 30842424 PMC6403336
  60. Shwed U, Bearman PS. 2010. The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation. Am. Sociol. Rev 75: 817– 40 21886269 PMC3163460
  61. State B, Rodriguez M, Helbing D, Zagheni E. 2014. Migration of professionals to the U.S. In Social Informatics: 6th International Conference, SocInfo 2014, Barcelona, Spain, November 11–13, 2014. Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. Aiello LM, McFarland D, pp. 531– 43. Cham, Switz.: Springer
  62. Stewart I, Flores R, Riffe T, Weber I, Zagheni E. 2019. Rock, rap, or reggaeton?: Assessing Mexican immigrants’ cultural assimilation using Facebook data. ArXiv:1902.09453 [cs.CY] · arXiv
  63. Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B. 2013. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342: 468– 72 24159044
  64. van de Rijt A, Kang SM, Restivo M, Patil A. 2014. Field experiments of success-breeds-success dynamics. PNAS 111: 6934– 39 24778230 PMC4024896
  65. van Loon A, Bailenson J, Zaki J, Bostick J, Willer R. 2018. Virtual reality perspective-taking increases cognitive empathy for specific others. PLOS ONE 13: e0202442 30161144 PMC6116942
  66. West JD, Jacquet J, King MM, Correll SJ, Bergstrom CT. 2013. The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLOS ONE 8: e66212 23894278 PMC3718784
  67. Wu L, Wang D, Evans JA. 2019. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature 566: 378– 82 30760923
  68. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316: 1036– 39 17431139
  69. Yang Y, Chawla NV, Uzzi B. 2019. A network’s gender composition and communication pattern predict women’s leadership success. PNAS 116: 2033– 38 30670641 PMC6369753

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Edelmann, A., Wolff, T., Montagne, D., & Bail, C. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • Duke University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annual Review of Sociology
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2020-07-30
Volume
46
Issue
1
Pages
61-81
ISSN
  • 0360-0572 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2115
DOI
10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054621
PMC
PMC8612450
OpenAlex
W3022499311
Cited by
305
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 8
FWCI
6.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Annual Review of Sociology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD065563)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Digital Humanities and Scholarship
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Keywords
computational social science, digital data, social network analysis, group formation, collective behavior, political sociology, sociology of knowledge, sociology of culture, social psychology, emotions, cultural production, economic sociology, organizations, demography, population studies, human behavior, digital space, sociological theory

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