Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Predicting Social Influence based on Dynamic NetworkStructures
Mantian Hu Chih-Sheng Hsieh Jianmin Jia
Department of Marketing Department of Economics Department of Marketing
Chinese University of Hong Kong
March 13, 2015
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 1 / 16
Network Structure and New Product Diffusion
Figure: Two Networks of the Same Size but Different Structure
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 2 / 16
Diffusion within the ”String Ball”
Figure: network size = 330, final adopters = 28
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 3 / 16
Diffusion within the ”Flight Route Map”
Figure: network size = 329, final adopters = 13
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 4 / 16
Network Structure, Individual Interaction and Social Influence
Network Structure and Human Behaviors
Most human behaviors involve interactions with other people . The interactions
form all kinds of networks.
On the other hand, linked individuals interact with other linked individuals, so the
outcome ultimately depend on the entire network.
Therefore, interactions are shaped by the structure of networks.
Social Influence
Social influence expresses the conformity motive of behaving similar to peers if
there are enough peers doing the same (Young 2009).
Now the existence of social influence has been accepted.(Iyengar et al 2014)
In this paper, we show characteristics of network structure can help with predictions.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 5 / 16
Research Framework
Network Identification
Two Layer Snowball Sampling
Identification of Social Influence on Cellphone Adoptions
The Stochastic Actor-Based Dynamic Network Model
Identify Relationships of Network Structure Measures and Social Influence Effect
Meta Analysis
Samsung Phones
Samsung High-end Phones
Samsung Note II
Seeding Strategy Simulation
Compare individual based seeding strategy and network based seeding
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 6 / 16
Social Influence Identification -
It is hard to distinguish social influence and homophily (Manski 1993, Bramoulle
et al 2009, Hsieh and Lee 2013, Shalizi and Thomas 2011) .
Aral et al. (2009) proposed an approach using dynamic network information and
propensity matching. But it doesn’t fit our purpose.
We propose to use the Stochastic Actor-Oriented Model for Network and Behavior
Dynamics (Snijders 1996, 2001, 2007).
The model estimates the co-evolution of network formation and individual
behaviors using longitudinal network information.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 7 / 16
Network Structure Characteristics -
Network size
Network density
Network structure entropy
Std Dev of edge numbers across time
Clustering coefficient
Minimum eigenvalue of adjacency matrix
Epidemic threshold and Assortativity
Ratio of inward and outward network edges
Initial adopter status
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 8 / 16
Main Findings
Social influence -
Our findings show that 6.0% of approximately 1,000 individual social networks
exhibit social influence for Samsung Note II adoption, 12.3% for Samsung high-end
phone adoption, and 10.2% for Samsung brand adoption.
The effect implies that if all the friends of an individual who has not yet adopted
the cellphone product have already adopted the said product, then social influence
increases the chances of that individual adopting the product by 7.38 times.
Network structure -
Diversity of connection (network structural entropy) and time variation of edge
numbers are the two most important network measures related to the social
influence effect.
Simulations -
Simulation reveals that the social influence effect can be a double-edged sword.
Promoting the Samsung Note II to increase the adoption of it is likely to be difficult
with the existence of social influence, but individuals are more likely to adopt
Samsung branded phones, particularly high-tier ones due to the promotion.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 9 / 16
Main Findings
Social influence -
Our findings show that 6.0% of approximately 1,000 individual social networks
exhibit social influence for Samsung Note II adoption, 12.3% for Samsung high-end
phone adoption, and 10.2% for Samsung brand adoption.
The effect implies that if all the friends of an individual who has not yet adopted
the cellphone product have already adopted the said product, then social influence
increases the chances of that individual adopting the product by 7.38 times.
Network structure -
Diversity of connection (network structural entropy) and time variation of edge
numbers are the two most important network measures related to the social
influence effect.
Simulations -
Simulation reveals that the social influence effect can be a double-edged sword.
Promoting the Samsung Note II to increase the adoption of it is likely to be difficult
with the existence of social influence, but individuals are more likely to adopt
Samsung branded phones, particularly high-tier ones due to the promotion.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 9 / 16
Main Findings
Social influence -
Our findings show that 6.0% of approximately 1,000 individual social networks
exhibit social influence for Samsung Note II adoption, 12.3% for Samsung high-end
phone adoption, and 10.2% for Samsung brand adoption.
The effect implies that if all the friends of an individual who has not yet adopted
the cellphone product have already adopted the said product, then social influence
increases the chances of that individual adopting the product by 7.38 times.
Network structure -
Diversity of connection (network structural entropy) and time variation of edge
numbers are the two most important network measures related to the social
influence effect.
Simulations -
Simulation reveals that the social influence effect can be a double-edged sword.
Promoting the Samsung Note II to increase the adoption of it is likely to be difficult
with the existence of social influence, but individuals are more likely to adopt
Samsung branded phones, particularly high-tier ones due to the promotion.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 9 / 16
Main Findings
Social influence -
Our findings show that 6.0% of approximately 1,000 individual social networks
exhibit social influence for Samsung Note II adoption, 12.3% for Samsung high-end
phone adoption, and 10.2% for Samsung brand adoption.
The effect implies that if all the friends of an individual who has not yet adopted
the cellphone product have already adopted the said product, then social influence
increases the chances of that individual adopting the product by 7.38 times.
Network structure -
Diversity of connection (network structural entropy) and time variation of edge
numbers are the two most important network measures related to the social
influence effect.
Simulations -
Simulation reveals that the social influence effect can be a double-edged sword.
Promoting the Samsung Note II to increase the adoption of it is likely to be difficult
with the existence of social influence, but individuals are more likely to adopt
Samsung branded phones, particularly high-tier ones due to the promotion.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 9 / 16
Main Findings
Social influence -
Our findings show that 6.0% of approximately 1,000 individual social networks
exhibit social influence for Samsung Note II adoption, 12.3% for Samsung high-end
phone adoption, and 10.2% for Samsung brand adoption.
The effect implies that if all the friends of an individual who has not yet adopted
the cellphone product have already adopted the said product, then social influence
increases the chances of that individual adopting the product by 7.38 times.
Network structure -
Diversity of connection (network structural entropy) and time variation of edge
numbers are the two most important network measures related to the social
influence effect.
Simulations -
Simulation reveals that the social influence effect can be a double-edged sword.
Promoting the Samsung Note II to increase the adoption of it is likely to be difficult
with the existence of social influence, but individuals are more likely to adopt
Samsung branded phones, particularly high-tier ones due to the promotion.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 9 / 16
Main Findings
Social influence -
Our findings show that 6.0% of approximately 1,000 individual social networks
exhibit social influence for Samsung Note II adoption, 12.3% for Samsung high-end
phone adoption, and 10.2% for Samsung brand adoption.
The effect implies that if all the friends of an individual who has not yet adopted
the cellphone product have already adopted the said product, then social influence
increases the chances of that individual adopting the product by 7.38 times.
Network structure -
Diversity of connection (network structural entropy) and time variation of edge
numbers are the two most important network measures related to the social
influence effect.
Simulations -
Simulation reveals that the social influence effect can be a double-edged sword.
Promoting the Samsung Note II to increase the adoption of it is likely to be difficult
with the existence of social influence, but individuals are more likely to adopt
Samsung branded phones, particularly high-tier ones due to the promotion.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 9 / 16
Main Findings
Social influence -
Our findings show that 6.0% of approximately 1,000 individual social networks
exhibit social influence for Samsung Note II adoption, 12.3% for Samsung high-end
phone adoption, and 10.2% for Samsung brand adoption.
The effect implies that if all the friends of an individual who has not yet adopted
the cellphone product have already adopted the said product, then social influence
increases the chances of that individual adopting the product by 7.38 times.
Network structure -
Diversity of connection (network structural entropy) and time variation of edge
numbers are the two most important network measures related to the social
influence effect.
Simulations -
Simulation reveals that the social influence effect can be a double-edged sword.
Promoting the Samsung Note II to increase the adoption of it is likely to be difficult
with the existence of social influence, but individuals are more likely to adopt
Samsung branded phones, particularly high-tier ones due to the promotion.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 9 / 16
Main Findings
Social influence -
Our findings show that 6.0% of approximately 1,000 individual social networks
exhibit social influence for Samsung Note II adoption, 12.3% for Samsung high-end
phone adoption, and 10.2% for Samsung brand adoption.
The effect implies that if all the friends of an individual who has not yet adopted
the cellphone product have already adopted the said product, then social influence
increases the chances of that individual adopting the product by 7.38 times.
Network structure -
Diversity of connection (network structural entropy) and time variation of edge
numbers are the two most important network measures related to the social
influence effect.
Simulations -
Simulation reveals that the social influence effect can be a double-edged sword.
Promoting the Samsung Note II to increase the adoption of it is likely to be difficult
with the existence of social influence, but individuals are more likely to adopt
Samsung branded phones, particularly high-tier ones due to the promotion.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 9 / 16
Data Collection
The data for this study were obtained from a major Chinese mobile carrier, which
gave us access to its entire customer base of 1.36 million users in two
medium-sized cities in western China.
The time period we choose is between November 2012 and May 2013, which
corresponds to the release of Samsung Note II.
Through two-layer snowball sampling, we obtain a sample of 26,000 customers
from 1,083 social networks with a mean network size of 110.
We construct seven time-varying monthly network matrices based on the monthly
calling and SMS record of each individual within the network.
In each matrix, an edge is placed between two individuals when they have called or
texted each other within the same month. Thus, network edges are undirected,
and the resulting matrix is symmetric.
We measure network statistics based on the accumulated network, which includes
all edges across sampling periods.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 10 / 16
Data Collection
The data for this study were obtained from a major Chinese mobile carrier, which
gave us access to its entire customer base of 1.36 million users in two
medium-sized cities in western China.
The time period we choose is between November 2012 and May 2013, which
corresponds to the release of Samsung Note II.
Through two-layer snowball sampling, we obtain a sample of 26,000 customers
from 1,083 social networks with a mean network size of 110.
We construct seven time-varying monthly network matrices based on the monthly
calling and SMS record of each individual within the network.
In each matrix, an edge is placed between two individuals when they have called or
texted each other within the same month. Thus, network edges are undirected,
and the resulting matrix is symmetric.
We measure network statistics based on the accumulated network, which includes
all edges across sampling periods.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 10 / 16
Data Collection
The data for this study were obtained from a major Chinese mobile carrier, which
gave us access to its entire customer base of 1.36 million users in two
medium-sized cities in western China.
The time period we choose is between November 2012 and May 2013, which
corresponds to the release of Samsung Note II.
Through two-layer snowball sampling, we obtain a sample of 26,000 customers
from 1,083 social networks with a mean network size of 110.
We construct seven time-varying monthly network matrices based on the monthly
calling and SMS record of each individual within the network.
In each matrix, an edge is placed between two individuals when they have called or
texted each other within the same month. Thus, network edges are undirected,
and the resulting matrix is symmetric.
We measure network statistics based on the accumulated network, which includes
all edges across sampling periods.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 10 / 16
Data Collection
The data for this study were obtained from a major Chinese mobile carrier, which
gave us access to its entire customer base of 1.36 million users in two
medium-sized cities in western China.
The time period we choose is between November 2012 and May 2013, which
corresponds to the release of Samsung Note II.
Through two-layer snowball sampling, we obtain a sample of 26,000 customers
from 1,083 social networks with a mean network size of 110.
We construct seven time-varying monthly network matrices based on the monthly
calling and SMS record of each individual within the network.
In each matrix, an edge is placed between two individuals when they have called or
texted each other within the same month. Thus, network edges are undirected,
and the resulting matrix is symmetric.
We measure network statistics based on the accumulated network, which includes
all edges across sampling periods.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 10 / 16
Data Collection
The data for this study were obtained from a major Chinese mobile carrier, which
gave us access to its entire customer base of 1.36 million users in two
medium-sized cities in western China.
The time period we choose is between November 2012 and May 2013, which
corresponds to the release of Samsung Note II.
Through two-layer snowball sampling, we obtain a sample of 26,000 customers
from 1,083 social networks with a mean network size of 110.
We construct seven time-varying monthly network matrices based on the monthly
calling and SMS record of each individual within the network.
In each matrix, an edge is placed between two individuals when they have called or
texted each other within the same month. Thus, network edges are undirected,
and the resulting matrix is symmetric.
We measure network statistics based on the accumulated network, which includes
all edges across sampling periods.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 10 / 16
Data Collection
The data for this study were obtained from a major Chinese mobile carrier, which
gave us access to its entire customer base of 1.36 million users in two
medium-sized cities in western China.
The time period we choose is between November 2012 and May 2013, which
corresponds to the release of Samsung Note II.
Through two-layer snowball sampling, we obtain a sample of 26,000 customers
from 1,083 social networks with a mean network size of 110.
We construct seven time-varying monthly network matrices based on the monthly
calling and SMS record of each individual within the network.
In each matrix, an edge is placed between two individuals when they have called or
texted each other within the same month. Thus, network edges are undirected,
and the resulting matrix is symmetric.
We measure network statistics based on the accumulated network, which includes
all edges across sampling periods.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 10 / 16
8 152
377 564
760 936
1083
1486 1630
1919 2135
2351 2615
3840
5011 5211
5563 5796
6067
6432 6678
Nov '12 Dec '12 Jan '13 Feb '13 Mar '13 Apr '13 May '13
Samsung Note II Samsung High-end Samsung
Figure: The monthly number of adopters for each level
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 11 / 16
The Stochastic Actor-Oriented Model for Network and Behavior Dynamics -Assumptions
It is a continuous time model.
We observe network (g) and several behavioral outcomes (y1, y2, · · · , yH)at two or
more discrete points in time (say t1 < t2 < · · · < tM). We treat them as snapshots
from a continuous process.
Between any two discrete time points, tm and tm+1, there are “micro” steps at
stochastically determined moments that individuals have chances to change their
network ties or behaviors.
Changes of state variables, z = (g , y1, · · · , yH), are assumed to follow a continuous
Markov process.
The changes of network tie and behavior made by an individual are conditionally
independent of each other, given the current state of the process.
Moreover, one and only one individual can make decision at a time.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 12 / 16
Results - Scatter Plots of Estimated Social Influence and Homophily
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
● ●●
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
−2 0 2 4 6 8
24
68
10
Estimate of coefficient
Sta
ndar
d er
ror
NoteII
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●● ●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●● ●
●
allsignificant
●
●●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●● ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
−4 0 2 4 6
02
46
810
Estimate of coefficient
Sta
ndar
d er
ror
HighEnd
●
●
●
●●
●
●●●
●
●●
●
●●
● ●
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●●
●
●●
●
●
●●●
●
●●
●● ●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
● ●
● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●● ●●
●●
●●●
●
●
●
●●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●● ●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●●
●
● ●
●●
●
●●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●●●●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ● ●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
● ● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●● ●●
●
● ●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●● ●
●
●
●
●
−4 −2 0 2 4
24
68
Estimate of coefficient
Sta
ndar
d er
ror
Brand
●
●
● ●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●●●
●●
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●
● ●●●
●
●●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●●
●●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
● ●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●●●●●●
●
●
●
●
●●●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Estimate of coefficient
Sta
ndar
d er
ror
NoteII
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●●●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
allsignificant
●●
●● ●●
●●
●
●●●
●
●
●●
●
●●●
●
●
●●
●●
●●
●●●● ●●
●
●
●●
●●●●
●
●
●
●
●●●●
●●
●
●
●●●●●●●●
●
●●
●●●
●●
● ●●
●●
●
●
●●
●●●●
●
●●
●●●
●●●
●
●●●
●
●●
●
●●●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
● ●●●●●●●●●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●●
●●
●●
●●●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●●●
●
●●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●● ●
●
●●
●●●
●
●
●
●●●●●
●●
●
●●●
●
●●●●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●●●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●●●●
●
●
●
●●●●●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●●●●●
●●
●
●●
● ●
●●
●●
●●
● ●
●●●●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●●
●●
●●●
●
●
●●●●
●●
● ●●●
●●
●
●
●●
●●●
●
●●
●●●●
●●
●
●●●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●●●
●
●●
●●●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●●●●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●●●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
● ●
●
●
●
●●●●
●●●●●
●
●
●
●
●● ●●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●●●
●
●
● ●●●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
● ●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●●●
●
●
●
●
●●●●●●●●●●
●
●●●●●●●●
●●
●
●●
●
●●●●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●●●
●●●
●●●
●●●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●● ●●
●
●
●●
●●
●●
●●●●
●
●●●
●
●●
●
● ●●
●
●
●●
●●●
●●
●●●●●●
●
●●
●
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Estimate of coefficient
Sta
ndar
d er
ror
HighEnd
●●
●
●
●
●
●●●●
●● ●●●●
●
●●
●
●
●●●●
●●
●
●●
●
●●●
●
●●
●●
●
●●
●
●●●●●
●
● ●●●●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●●●
●●
●
●●
●●●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●●●●
●●
●
●●●
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●● ●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●●●●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●● ●●●●
●
●●
●
●●● ●●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●●●●●●●●●●●
●●
●●
●●●
●
●
●●
●●●
●
●●
●
●●
●●● ●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●● ●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●● ●●
●
● ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●●●●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●●●
●●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●● ●
●
●
●●
●●●
●●
●●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●●● ●●●●
●
●
●●
● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●● ●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●●●●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●●●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●●●● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●●●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●●●●●●●
●
●●●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●● ●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●●
●● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
● ●
●
●●●●
●●
●
●
●
●
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Estimate of coefficient
Sta
ndar
d er
ror
Brand
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●●
●
●●●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●●
●●●●
●
●
●●●●● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●●●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●●●
●
●
●
●●
●●●● ●
●
●● ●
●●●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●●●●
●
●●
●●●
●● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●●
●●
●●
●●●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●●●●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●●
●●
●●
●●
●
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 13 / 16
Results - Meta Regression of Social Influence – Collection of Results fromSeparated Regressions
Samsung NoteII Samsung HighEnd Samsung Brand
significance magnitude significance magnitude significance magnitude
Clustering −0.175 0.222 2.171∗∗ 1.258∗∗ 3.994∗∗∗ 2.168∗∗∗coefficient (−0.23, 0.247) (0.28, 0.049) (3.25, 0.276) (3.79, 0.202) (5.29, 0.337) (7.37, 0.236)
Minimum 0.0212 −0.0074 0.0212 0.0054 −0.0132 −0.0031eigenvalue (1.01, 0.249)(−0.50, 0.049) (1.28, 0.261) (0.65, 0.187)(−0.66, 0.284)(−0.35, 0.184)
Epidemic −7.437∗∗ −5.872∗∗∗ −18.74∗∗∗ −6.488∗∗∗ −8.581∗∗∗ −5.546∗∗∗threshold (−3.22, 0.263)(−3.42, 0.094)(−5.08, 0.286)(−5.40, 0.254)(−4.57, 0.312)(−5.26, 0.239)
Assortativity 0.542 0.646 1.457∗∗∗ 0.860∗∗ 1.579∗∗∗ 1.258∗∗∗(1.12, 0.250) (1.24, 0.055) (3.81, 0.282) (2.92, 0.206) (4.12, 0.312) (4.63, 0.227)
Log in-out edge 0.0130 0.0453 0.0319 0.0772 0.0481 0.0299ratio (0.12, 0.243) (0.39, 0.049) (0.39, 0.258) (1.16, 0.190) (0.60, 0.285) (0.51, 0.189)
Degc. 13.04∗∗∗ 8.326∗ 13.24∗∗∗ 7.230∗∗∗ 10.29∗∗∗ 7.269∗∗∗diversity (3.78, 0.294) (2.50, 0.073) (4.66, 0.300) (3.70, 0.218) (3.95, 0.313) (4.10, 0.217)
Eigc. 5.117∗∗ 2.683∗ 3.149∗∗ 1.816∗∗ 2.055 0.562diversity (3.05, 0.275) (2.07, 0.059) (2.65, 0.270) (2.94, 0.196) (1.64, 0.288) (1.00, 0.184)
Initial adopters’ 0.0113+ 0.00478 0.0302∗∗∗ 0.00593 0.0251∗∗ 0.00941degc. (1.89, 0.257) (1.04, 0.053) (3.82, 0.282) (1.24, 0.190) (2.86, 0.297) (1.60, 0.189)
Initial adopters’ −0.417 −0.349 −0.727 −0.681+ −2.080∗∗ −1.556∗∗eigc. (−1.07, 0.250)(−0.96, 0.052)(−1.60, 0.263)(−1.92, 0.195)(−3.07, 0.299)(−3.17, 0.204)
Sd of edge 0.00213∗∗∗ 0.0023∗∗∗ 0.000475 0.0012∗∗∗ 0.000509 0.0012∗∗∗number (3.61, 0.286) (5.03, 0.105) (1.10, 0.260) (4.93, 0.213) (1.03, 0.285) (3.67, 0.197)
Observations 410 715 791
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 14 / 16
Simulation Results
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 15 / 16
Managerial Implications and Future Work
A new perspective on company targeting strategies - network based targeting.
Network structure information significantly complements individual demographic
and local position information.
The right networks must be selected based on a general network structure prior to
selecting the right seeds based on personal characteristics and network positions.
For future research, we will also examine a competitive scenario (e.g., Samsung
versus Apple) and investigate the relationship between their network structures and
adoption behaviors under competition.
M. T. Hu, C. S. Hsieh and J. M. Jia (CUHK) Network Structure and Social Influence March 13, 2015 16 / 16