Using both observational and experimental methods, Christakis and Fowler examined phenomena from various domains, such as obesity, happiness, cooperation, voting, and various public health beliefs and behaviors. However, across a broad set of empirical settings, using both observational and experimental methods, they observed that the effect seems, in many cases, to no longer be meaningful at a social horizon of three degrees.
This argument is basically that peer effects need not stop at one degree of separation. Our influence gradually dissipates and ceases to have a noticeable effect on people beyond the social frontier that lies at three degrees of separation." They posited a number of reasons for this decay, and they offered informational, psychological, and biological rationales. Christakis and Fowler posited that diverse phenomena "ripple through our network, having an impact on our friends (one degree), our friends’ friends (two degrees), and even our friends’ friends’ friends (three degrees). People influence their friends, who in turn influence their friends, and so on hence, a person's beliefs and actions can influence people he or she has never met, to whom he or she is only indirectly tied.
They described how social influence does not end with the people to whom a person is directly connected. It has since been explored by scientists in numerous disciplines using diverse statistical, psychological, sociological, and biological approaches.Ĭhristakis and Fowler explored the influence of social connections on behavior. Three Degrees of Influence is a theory in the realm of social networks, proposed by Nicholas A.
0 kommentar(er)
