The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Structural Virality of Online Diffusion
Abstract
Viral products and ideas are intuitively understood to grow through a person-to-person diffusion process analogous to the spread of an infectious disease; however, until recently it has been prohibitively difficult to directly observe purportedly viral events, and thus to rigorously quantify or characterize their structural properties. Here we propose a formal measure of what we label “structural virality” that interpolates between two conceptual extremes: content that gains its popularity through a single, large broadcast and that which grows through multiple generations with any one individual directly responsible for only a fraction of the total adoption. We use this notion of structural virality to analyze a unique data set of a billion diffusion events on Twitter, including the propagation of news stories, videos, images, and petitions. We find that across all domains and all sizes of events, online diffusion is characterized by surprising structural diversity; that is, popular events regularly grow via both broadcast and viral mechanisms, as well as essentially all conceivable combinations of the two. Nevertheless, we find that structural virality is typically low, and remains so independent of size, suggesting that popularity is largely driven by the size of the largest broadcast. Finally, we attempt to replicate these findings with a model of contagion characterized by a low infection rate spreading on a scale-free network. We find that although several of our empirical findings are consistent with such a model, it fails to replicate the observed diversity of structural virality, thereby suggesting new directions for future modeling efforts. This paper was accepted by Lorin Hitt, information systems.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2019) · An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research · doi:10.4324/9780203710753-35 · Cited by 37,322
Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · Cited by 36,135
A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics
Kermack, W. O., & McKendrick, A. G. (1927) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character · doi:10.1098/rspa.1927.0118 · Cited by 11,701
Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data
Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. J. (2009) · SIAM Review · doi:10.1137/070710111 · Cited by 8,019
Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network
Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J., & Tardos, É. (2003) · Proceedings of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/956750.956769 · Cited by 7,326
Stanton, B. F., & Rogers, E. M. (1963) · Journal of Farm Economics · doi:10.2307/1235767 · Cited by 6,675
What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010) · Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1772690.1772751 · Cited by 6,652
Power-law distributions in empirical data
Clauset, A. J., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. J. (2018) · Figshare · doi:10.1184/r1/6586835.v1 · Cited by 6,504
Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control
Anderson, R. M., & May, R. M. (1991) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198545996.001.0001 · Cited by 6,179
Threshold models of collective behavior
Granovetter, M. (1978) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/226707 · Cited by 6,072
Cited by
The spread of true and false news online
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap9559 · Cited by 8,847
van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001 · Cited by 2,951
Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3144139 · Cited by 1,222
A Survey of Fake News: Fundamental Theories, Detection Methods, and Opportunities
Zhou, X., & Zafarani, R. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3395046 · Cited by 1,184
Public health and online misinformation: challenges and recommendations
Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2020) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127 · Cited by 1,170
Metadata
- Authors
- Goel, S., Anderson, A., Hofman, J., & Watts, D. J.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 180-196
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2178843456
- Cited by
- 647
- References
- 58
- FWCI
- 33.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Structural Virality of Online Diffusion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2158
- The paper
- Goel, S., Anderson, A., Hofman, J., & Watts, D. J. (2016). The Structural Virality of Online Diffusion. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2158
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.