Network researchers have viewed a few influential individuals as driving the diffusion of ideas among individuals while paying little attention to the ways by which diffusion events came about in the first place. This study examines the role of the first adopters in the diffusion of simple ideas. To this end, it draws on the diffusion events of individual blog-posts in an online social community over a one-month period from 1 June to 30 June 2006. This study finds that an idea is likely to diffuse to remote contacts as the proportion of strong ties held by the source; that is, the idea originator, increases or as the social relations surrounding the source become dense. The analysis of this study suggests that the neighbors of the source play a pivotal role in the diffusion of simple ideas, and that an idea that is validated and supported early on by a cohesive group is likely to diffuse to remote contacts.
AbrahamsonE.RosenkopfL. (1997) “Social Network Effects on the Extent of Innovation Diffusion: A Computer Simulation,” Organization Science8: 289–309.
2.
AralS.Van AlstyneM. (2011) “The Diversity-Bandwidth Trade-Off,” American Journal of Sociology117: 90–171.
3.
BaeJ.KooJ. (2008) “Information Loss, Knowledge Transfer Cost and the Value of Social Relations,” Strategic Organization6: 227–58.
4.
BianY. (1997) “Bringing Strong Ties Back in: Indirect Ties, Network Bridges, and Job Searches in China,” American Sociological Review62: 366–85.
5.
BorgattiS. P.CrossR. (2003) “A Relational View of Information Seeking and Learning in Social Networks,” Management Science49: 432–45.
6.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1992) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. CA: Sage, Newbury Park.
7.
BurtR. S. (1987) “Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence,” American Journal of Sociology92: 1287–335.
8.
BurtR. S. (1992) Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
BurtR. S. (2005) Brokerage and Closure. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
BurtR. S.KnezM. (1995) ‘Kinds of Third-Party Effects on Trust’, Rationality and Society7: 255–92.
11.
CarpenterD.EsterlingK.LazerD. (2003) “The Strength of Strong Ties: A Model of Contact-Making in Policy Networks with Evidence from U.S. Health Politics,” Rationality and Society15: 411–40.
12.
CartwrightD.HararyF. (1956) “Structural Balance: A Generalization of Heider’s Theory,” Psychological Review63: 277–93.
13.
CentolaD.MacyM. (2007) “Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties,” American Journal of Sociology113: 702–34.
14.
ChanC. S. (2009) “Invigorating the Content in Social Embeddedness: An Ethnography of Life Insurance Transactions in China,” American Journal of Sociology115: 712–54.
15.
ColemanJ. (1988) “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital,” American Journal of Sociology94: S95–S120.
16.
ColemanJ.KatzE.MenzelH. (1957) “The Diffusion of an Innovation among Physicians,” Sociometry20: 253–70.
17.
ConstantD.SproullL. S.KieslerS. B. (1996) “The Kindness of Strangers: The Usefulness of Electronic Weak Ties for Technical Advice,” Organization Science7: 119–35.
18.
DavisG. F.GreveH. R. (1997) “Corporate Elite Networks and Governance Changes in the 1980s,” American Journal of Sociology103: 1–37.
19.
DavisJ. A. (1963) “Structural Balance, Mechanical Solidarity, and Interpersonal Relations,” American Journal of Sociology68: 444–62.
20.
EricksonB. H. (1988) “The Relational Basis of Attitudes,” in WellmanB.BerkowitzS. D. (eds) Social Structure: A Network Approach, pp. 99–121. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
FriedkinN. E. (1998) A Structural Theory of Social Influence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
FulkJ.DeSanctisG. (1995) “Electronic Communication and Changing Organizational Forms,” Organization Science6: 337–49.
23.
GigerenzerG.HoffrageU.KleinboltingH. (1991) “Probabilistic Mental Models: A Brunswikian Theory of Confidence,” Psychological Review98: 506–28.
24.
GolderS. A.WilkinsonD. M.HubermanB. A. (2007) Rhythms of Social Influence (…) A Massive Online Network,” in SteinfeldC.PentlandB.T.AckermanM.ContractorN. (eds) Communities and Technologies2007, pp.41-66. London: Springer-Verlag London Limited.
25.
GranovetterM. (1973) “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology78: 1360–80.
26.
GranovetterM. (1978) “Threshold Models of Collective Behavior,” American Journal of Sociology83: 1420–43.
27.
GranovetterM. (1992) “Problems of Explanation in Economic Sociology,” in NohriaN.EcclesR. (eds) Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form and Action, pp. 29–56. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
28.
HansenM. T. (1999) “The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits,” Administrative Science Quarterly44: 82–111.
29.
HaunschildP. R. (1993) “Interorganizational Imitation: The Impact of Interlocks on Corporate Acquisition Activity,” Administrative Science Quarterly38: 564–92.
30.
HayesT. (2008) Jump Point: How Network Culture is Revolutionizing Business. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
31.
HeiderF. (1946) “Attitudes and Cognitive Organization,” Journal of Psychology21: 107–12.
32.
JonesQ.RavidG.RafaeliS. (2004) “Information Overload and the Message Dynamics of Online Interaction Spaces: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Exploration,” Information Systems Research15: 194–210.
33.
KatzE. (1957) “The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-To-Date Report on a Hypothesis,” Public Opinion Quarterly21: 61–78.
34.
KijkuitB.EndeJ. V. E. (2010) “With a Little Help from Our Colleagues: A Longitudinal Study of Social Networks for Innovation,” Organization Studies31: 451–79.
35.
KossinetsG.WattsD. (2006) “Empirical Analysis of an Evolving Social Network,” Science311: 88–90.
36.
KumarR.NovakJ.RaghavanP.TomkinsA. (2004) “Structure and Evolution of Blogspace,” Communications of the ACM47: 35–9.
37.
LevinD. Z.CrossR. (2004) “The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer,” Management Science50: 1477–90.
38.
LewisK.KaufmanJ.GonzalezM.WimmerA.ChristakisN. (2008) “Tastes, Ties, and Time: A New Social Network Dataset Using Facebook.com,” Social Networks30: 330–42.
39.
LinN. (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40.
LouchH. (2000) “Personal Network Integration: Transitivity and Homophily in Strong-Tie Relations,” Social Networks22: 45–64.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001) “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks,” Annual Review of Sociology27: 415–44.
43.
MenzelH.KatzE. (1955) “Social Relations and Innovation in the Medical Profession: The Epidemiology of a New Drug,” Public Opinion Quarterly19: 337–53.
44.
MichaelsonA. G. (1993) “The Development of a Scientific Speciality as Diffusion through Social Relations: The Case of Role Analysis,” Social Networks15: 217–36.
45.
NardiB. A.SchianoD. J.GumbrechtM.SwartzL. (2004) “Why We Blog,” Communications of the ACM47: 41–6.
46.
OhH.ChungM.-H.LabiancaG. (2004) “Group Social Capital and Group Effectiveness: The Role of Information Socializing Ties,” Academy of Management Journal47: 860–75.
47.
O’ReillyC. A. (1980) “Individuals and Information Overload in Organizations: Is More Necessarily Better?,” Academy of Management Journal23: 684–96.
48.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
49.
ReagansR.ZuckermanE. W. (2001) “Networks, Diversity, and Productivity: The Social Capital of Corporate R&D Teams,” Organization Science12: 502–17.
50.
RogersE. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn.New York: Free Press.
51.
ShipilovA.GreveH. R.RowleyT. J. (2010) “When Do Interlocks Matter? Institutional Logics and the Diffusion of Multiple Corporate Governance Practices,” Academy of Management Journal53: 846–64.
52.
SimmelG. (1955) Conflict and the Web of Group-Affiliated Organizations. New York: Free Press.
53.
SimonH. (1945) Administrative Behavior. New York: Free Press.
54.
StinchcombeA. (1965) “Social Structure and Organizations,” in MarchJ. (ed.) Handbook of Organizations, pp. 142–93.Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
55.
StrangD.MacyM. W. (2001) “In Search of Excellence: Fads, Success Stories, and Adaptive Emulation,” American Journal of Sociology107: 147–82.
56.
StrangD.SouleS. A. (1998) “Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements: From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills,” Annual Review of Sociology24: 265–90.
57.
SzulanskiG. (1996) “Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal17: 27–43.
58.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974) “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science185: 1124–31.
59.
ValenteT. W. (1995) Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovations. Cresskill NJ: Hampton Press.
60.
ValenteT. W. (1996) “Social Network Thresholds in the Diffusion of Innovations,” Social Networks18: 69–89.
61.
WattsD. (1999) Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks between Order and Randomness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
62.
WattsD. (2003) Six Degrees, New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
63.
WattsD.DoddsP. S. (2007) “Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation,” Journal of Consumer Research34: 441–58.
64.
WellmanB.SalaffJ.DimitrovaD.GartonL.GuliaM.HaythornthwaiteC. (1996) “Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual Community,” Annual Review of Sociology22: 213–38.
65.
WestphalJ. D.GulatiR.ShortellS. M. (1997) “Customization or Conformity? An Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption,” Administrative Science Quarterly42: 366–94.
66.
ZajoncR. B. (1968) “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology9: 1–27.
