IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/qmktec/v18y2020i3d10.1007_s11129-020-09224-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Displaying things in common to encourage friendship formation: A large randomized field experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Tianshu Sun

    (University of Southern California)

  • Sean J. Taylor

    (Facebook, Inc)

Abstract

Friendship formation is of central importance to online social network sites and to society, but can suffer from significant and unequal frictions. In this study, we demonstrate that social networks and policy makers may use an IT-facilitated intervention – displaying things in common (TIC) between users (mutual hometown, interest, education, work, city) – to encourage friendship formation, especially among people who are different from each other. Displaying TIC may update an individual’s belief about the shared similarity with another and reduce information friction that may be hard to overcome in offline communication. In collaboration with an online social network, we design and implement a randomized field experiment, which randomly varies the prominence of different types of things in common information when a user (viewer) is browsing a non-friend’s profile. The dyad-level exogenous variation, orthogonal to any (un)observed structural factors in viewer-profile’s network, allows us to cleanly isolate the role of individuals’ preference for TIC in driving network formation and homophily. We find that displaying TIC to viewers may significantly increase their probability of sending a friend request and forming a friendship, and is especially effective for pairs of people who have little in common. Such findings suggest that information intervention is a very effective and zero-cost approach to encourage the formation of weak ties, and also provide the first experimental evidence on the crucial role of individuals’ preference (versus structural embeddedness) in network formation. We further demonstrate that displaying TIC could improve friendship formation for a wide range of viewers with different demographics and friendship status, and is more effective when the TIC information is more surprising to the viewer. Our study offers actionable insights to social networks and policy makers on the design of information intervention to encourage friendship formation and improve the diversity of the friendship, at both an aggregate and an individual level.

Suggested Citation

  • Tianshu Sun & Sean J. Taylor, 2020. "Displaying things in common to encourage friendship formation: A large randomized field experiment," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 237-271, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:qmktec:v:18:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11129-020-09224-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11129-020-09224-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11129-020-09224-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11129-020-09224-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:cbooks:9780511771576 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Raghuram Iyengar & Christophe Van den Bulte & Thomas W. Valente, 2011. "Opinion Leadership and Social Contagion in New Product Diffusion," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 195-212, 03-04.
    3. Daniel Fleder & Kartik Hosanagar, 2009. "Blockbuster Culture's Next Rise or Fall: The Impact of Recommender Systems on Sales Diversity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 697-712, May.
    4. Raymond Fisman & Sheena S. Iyengar & Emir Kamenica & Itamar Simonson, 2008. "Racial Preferences in Dating," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 75(1), pages 117-132.
    5. Sergio Currarini & Matthew O. Jackson & Paolo Pin, 2009. "An Economic Model of Friendship: Homophily, Minorities, and Segregation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 1003-1045, July.
    6. Kristen M. Altenburger & Johan Ugander, 2018. "Monophily in social networks introduces similarity among friends-of-friends," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(4), pages 284-290, April.
    7. Mary J. Fischer, 2008. "Does Campus Diversity Promote Friendship Diversity? A Look at Interracial Friendships in College," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(3), pages 631-655, September.
    8. Leonardo Bursztyn & Georgy Egorov & Stefano Fiorin, 2017. "From Extreme to Mainstream: How Social Norms Unravel," NBER Working Papers 23415, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Venkatesh Bala & Sanjeev Goyal, 2000. "A Noncooperative Model of Network Formation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1181-1230, September.
    10. Scott K. Shriver & Harikesh S. Nair & Reto Hofstetter, 2013. "Social Ties and User-Generated Content: Evidence from an Online Social Network," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(6), pages 1425-1443, June.
    11. Raymond Fisman & Sheena S. Iyengar & Emir Kamenica & Itamar Simonson, 2006. "Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence From a Speed Dating Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 673-697.
    12. Yan Huang & Param Vir Singh & Anindya Ghose, 2015. "A Structural Model of Employee Behavioral Dynamics in Enterprise Social Media," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(12), pages 2825-2844, December.
    13. Mike Thelwall, 2009. "Homophily in MySpace," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(2), pages 219-231, February.
    14. Tuan Q. Phan & David Godes, 2018. "The Evolution of Influence Through Endogenous Link Formation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(2), pages 259-278, March.
    15. Ravi Bapna & Akhmed Umyarov, 2015. "Do Your Online Friends Make You Pay? A Randomized Field Experiment on Peer Influence in Online Social Networks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(8), pages 1902-1920, August.
    16. Ravi Bapna & Jui Ramaprasad & Galit Shmueli & Akhmed Umyarov, 2016. "One-Way Mirrors in Online Dating: A Randomized Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(11), pages 3100-3122, November.
    17. Sinan Aral & Dylan Walker, 2011. "Creating Social Contagion Through Viral Product Design: A Randomized Trial of Peer Influence in Networks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(9), pages 1623-1639, February.
    18. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2016. "Mindful Economics: The Production, Consumption, and Value of Beliefs," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(3), pages 141-164, Summer.
    19. Gee, Laura K. & Jones, Jason J. & Fariss, Christopher J. & Burke, Moira & Fowler, James H., 2017. "The paradox of weak ties in 55 countries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 362-372.
    20. Sinan Aral & Dylan Walker, 2014. "Tie Strength, Embeddedness, and Social Influence: A Large-Scale Networked Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(6), pages 1352-1370, June.
    21. Angelo Mele, 2017. "A Structural Model of Dense Network Formation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 825-850, May.
    22. Anjana Susarla & Jeong-Ha Oh & Yong Tan, 2012. "Social Networks and the Diffusion of User-Generated Content: Evidence from YouTube," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 23-41, March.
    23. Jeffrey Ely & Alexander Frankel & Emir Kamenica, 2015. "Suspense and Surprise," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(1), pages 215-260.
    24. Chris Forman & Anindya Ghose & Batia Wiesenfeld, 2008. "Examining the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 291-313, September.
    25. Hema Yoganarasimhan, 2012. "Impact of social network structure on content propagation: A study using YouTube data," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 111-150, March.
    26. Easley,David & Kleinberg,Jon, 2010. "Networks, Crowds, and Markets," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521195331.
    27. Zsolt Katona & Miklos Sarvary, 2008. "Network Formation and the Structure of the Commercial World Wide Web," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 764-778, 09-10.
    28. Olivier Toubia & Andrew T. Stephen, 2013. "Intrinsic vs. Image-Related Utility in Social Media: Why Do People Contribute Content to Twitter?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 368-392, May.
    29. Wesley Hartmann & Puneet Manchanda & Harikesh Nair & Matthew Bothner & Peter Dodds & David Godes & Kartik Hosanagar & Catherine Tucker, 2008. "Modeling social interactions: Identification, empirical methods and policy implications," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 287-304, December.
    30. Wesley R. Hartmann, 2010. "Demand Estimation with Social Interactions and the Implications for Targeted Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 585-601, 07-08.
    31. Kelly A. Mollica & Barbara Gray & Linda K. Treviño, 2003. "Racial Homophily and Its Persistence in Newcomers' Social Networks," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 123-136, April.
    32. Vasant Dhar & Tomer Geva & Gal Oestreicher-Singer & Arun Sundararajan, 2014. "Prediction in Economic Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 264-284, June.
    33. Chong (Alex) Wang & Xiaoquan (Michael) Zhang & Il-Horn Hann, 2018. "Socially Nudged: A Quasi-Experimental Study of Friends’ Social Influence in Online Product Ratings," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 641-655, September.
    34. Dina Mayzlin & Hema Yoganarasimhan, 2012. "Link to Success: How Blogs Build an Audience by Promoting Rivals," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(9), pages 1651-1668, September.
    35. Catherine Tucker, 2008. "Identifying Formal and Informal Influence in Technology Adoption with Network Externalities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(12), pages 2024-2038, December.
    36. Randall A. Lewis & Justin M. Rao, 2015. "The Unfavorable Economics of Measuring the Returns to Advertising," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(4), pages 1941-1973.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tianshu Sun & Siva Viswanathan & Elena Zheleva, 2021. "Creating Social Contagion Through Firm-Mediated Message Design: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 808-827, February.
    2. Nadav Rakocz & Sindhu Ernala & Israel Nir & Udi Weinsberg & Amit Bahl, 2023. "The heterogeneous effects of social support on the adoption of Facebook’s vaccine profile frames feature," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Mosleh, Mohsen & Eckles, Dean & Rand, David Gertler, 2024. "Tendencies toward triadic closure: Field-experimental evidence," SocArXiv ys8zw, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tingting Song & Qian Tang & Jinghua Huang, 2019. "Triadic Closure, Homophily, and Reciprocation: An Empirical Investigation of Social Ties Between Content Providers," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 912-926, September.
    2. Liangfei Qiu & Zhan (Michael) Shi & Andrew B. Whinston, 2018. "Learning from Your Friends’ Check-Ins: An Empirical Study of Location-Based Social Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 1044-1061, December.
    3. Muller, Eitan & Peres, Renana, 2019. "The effect of social networks structure on innovation performance: A review and directions for research," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 3-19.
    4. Sarah Gelper & Ralf van der Lans & Gerrit van Bruggen, 2021. "Competition for Attention in Online Social Networks: Implications for Seeding Strategies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 1026-1047, February.
    5. Chen, Zhen-Yu & Fan, Zhi-Ping & Sun, Minghe, 2019. "Individual-level social influence identification in social media: A learning-simulation coordinated method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1005-1015.
    6. Kim, Hwang & Rao, Vithala R., 2022. "The role of network embeddedness across multiple social networks: Evidence from mobile social network games," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 867-887.
    7. Liangfei Qiu & Arunima Chhikara & Asoo Vakharia, 2021. "Multidimensional Observational Learning in Social Networks: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 876-894, September.
    8. Qingliang Wang & Fred Miao & Giri Kumar Tayi & En Xie, 2019. "What makes online content viral? The contingent effects of hub users versus non–hub users on social media platforms," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 1005-1026, November.
    9. Ganesh Iyer & Zsolt Katona, 2016. "Competing for Attention in Social Communication Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(8), pages 2304-2320, August.
    10. Zhihong Ke & De Liu & Daniel J. Brass, 2020. "Do Online Friends Bring Out the Best in Us? The Effect of Friend Contributions on Online Review Provision," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1322-1336, December.
    11. Alex Chin & Dean Eckles & Johan Ugander, 2022. "Evaluating Stochastic Seeding Strategies in Networks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 1714-1736, March.
    12. Ravi Bapna & Akhmed Umyarov, 2015. "Do Your Online Friends Make You Pay? A Randomized Field Experiment on Peer Influence in Online Social Networks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(8), pages 1902-1920, August.
    13. Wang, Feng & Zhang, Xueting & Chen, Man & Zeng, Wei & Cao, Rong, 2022. "The influential paradox: Brand and deal content sharing by influencers in friendship networks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 503-514.
    14. Shan Huang & Sinan Aral & Yu Jeffrey Hu & Erik Brynjolfsson, 2020. "Social Advertising Effectiveness Across Products: A Large-Scale Field Experiment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(6), pages 1142-1165, November.
    15. Tianshu Sun & Guodong (Gordon) Gao & Ginger Zhe Jin, 2019. "Mobile Messaging for Offline Group Formation in Prosocial Activities: A Large Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 2717-2736, June.
    16. Tianshu Sun & Siva Viswanathan & Elena Zheleva, 2021. "Creating Social Contagion Through Firm-Mediated Message Design: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 808-827, February.
    17. Rishika Rishika & Jui Ramaprasad, 2019. "The Effects of Asymmetric Social Ties, Structural Embeddedness, and Tie Strength on Online Content Contribution Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3398-3422, July.
    18. Haris Krijestorac & Rajiv Garg & Vijay Mahajan, 2020. "Cross-Platform Spillover Effects in Consumption of Viral Content: A Quasi-Experimental Analysis Using Synthetic Controls," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 449-472, June.
    19. Jing Wang & Anocha Aribarg & Yves F. Atchadé, 2013. "Modeling Choice Interdependence in a Social Network," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 977-997, November.
    20. Stephan Seiler & Song Yao & Wenbo Wang, 2017. "Does Online Word of Mouth Increase Demand? (And How?) Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 838-861, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Network formation; Social interactions; Field experiment; Things in common; Homophily; Information theory; Diversity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D85 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Network Formation
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:qmktec:v:18:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11129-020-09224-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.