IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2510.04785.html

What shifts threshold distributions in social contagions?

Author

Listed:
  • Luca Lazzaro
  • Manuel S. Mariani
  • Ren'e Algesheimer
  • Radu Tanase

Abstract

Individual thresholds in social contagions capture what fraction of others must adopt a new product or behavior before an individual adopts it. Yet in a given choice context and population, we rarely know the empirical threshold distribution or what explains its heterogeneity. This limits the ability to predict diffusion dynamics and design effective network interventions. We address this by measuring thresholds with an incentivized online experiment in which participants make adoption decisions for products that vary in attractiveness and payoff uncertainty. The results show that product characteristics shift threshold distributions: lower attractiveness and higher uncertainty increase thresholds. Individual characteristics, however, remain essential for explaining threshold heterogeneity. We then use data-driven simulations to show that both product characteristics and individual characteristics moderate the effect of long ties in social contagions. In sum, the threshold distribution is the behavioral microfoundation of social contagion models and identifying empirical correlates of thresholds is crucial for understanding how network structure affects social contagions.

Suggested Citation

  • Luca Lazzaro & Manuel S. Mariani & Ren'e Algesheimer & Radu Tanase, 2025. "What shifts threshold distributions in social contagions?," Papers 2510.04785, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2026.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2510.04785
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.04785
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lori Beaman & Ariel BenYishay & Jeremy Magruder & Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak, 2021. "Can Network Theory-Based Targeting Increase Technology Adoption?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1918-1943, June.
    2. Peres, Renana & Muller, Eitan & Mahajan, Vijay, 2010. "Innovation diffusion and new product growth models: A critical review and research directions," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 91-106.
    3. Daniele Notarmuzi & Claudio Castellano & Alessandro Flammini & Dario Mazzilli & Filippo Radicchi, 2022. "Universality, criticality and complexity of information propagation in social media," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-8, December.
    4. Radu Tanase & Ren'e Algesheimer & Manuel S. Mariani, 2024. "Integrating behavioral experimental findings into dynamical models to inform social change interventions," Papers 2405.13224, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2026.
    5. Hazhir Rahmandad & John Sterman, 2008. "Heterogeneity and Network Structure in the Dynamics of Diffusion: Comparing Agent-Based and Differential Equation Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 998-1014, May.
    6. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    7. Duncan J. Watts & Steven H. Strogatz, 1998. "Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks," Nature, Nature, vol. 393(6684), pages 440-442, June.
    8. Oriel FeldmanHall & Amitai Shenhav, 2019. "Resolving uncertainty in a social world," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(5), pages 426-435, May.
    9. Jad Georges Sassine & Hazhir Rahmandad, 2024. "How Does Network Structure Impact Socially Reinforced Diffusion?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 52-70, January.
    10. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    11. 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.
    12. Sinan Aral & Christos Nicolaides, 2017. "Exercise contagion in a global social network," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, April.
    13. H. Peyton Young, 2009. "Innovation Diffusion in Heterogeneous Populations: Contagion, Social Influence, and Social Learning," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1899-1924, December.
    14. Brown, Jacqueline Johnson & Reingen, Peter H, 1987. "Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(3), pages 350-362, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Manuel S. Mariani & Federico Battiston & Emőke-Ágnes Horvát & Giacomo Livan & Federico Musciotto & Dashun Wang, 2024. "Collective dynamics behind success," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Nejad, Mohammad G. & Amini, Mehdi & Babakus, Emin, 2015. "Success Factors in Product Seeding: The Role of Homophily," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 68-88.
    3. Landsman, Vardit & Nitzan, Irit, 2020. "Cross-decision social effects in product adoption and defection decisions," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 213-235.
    4. Elmar Kiesling & Markus Günther & Christian Stummer & Lea Wakolbinger, 2012. "Agent-based simulation of innovation diffusion: a review," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 20(2), pages 183-230, June.
    5. William Rand & Christian Stummer, 2021. "Agent‐based modeling of new product market diffusion: an overview of strengths and criticisms," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 305(1), pages 425-447, October.
    6. Wojciech Hardy & Michal Krawczyk & Joanna Tyrowicz, 2015. ""Thou shalt not leech" Are digital pirates conditional cooperators?," Working Papers 2015-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    7. repec:osf:osfxxx:x6vda_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Christoph Engel & Luigi Mittone & Azzurra Morreale, 2024. "Outcomes or participation? Experimentally testing competing sources of legitimacy for taxation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(2), pages 563-583, April.
    9. Jihyo Kim & Suhyeon Nam, 2021. "Do Household Time, Risk, and Social Preferences Affect Home Energy Retrofit Decisions in Korea?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    10. Lahno, Amrei M. & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2012. "Peer Effects in Risk Taking," Discussion Papers in Economics 14309, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    11. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    12. Lacomba, Juan A. & Lagos, Francisco & Reuben, Ernesto & van Winden, Frans, 2017. "Decisiveness, peace, and inequality in games of conflict," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 216-229.
    13. Edouard Civel & Marc Baudry, 2018. "The Fate of Inventions. What can we learn from Bayesian learning in strategic options model of adoption ?," EconomiX Working Papers 2018-47, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    14. Elisabeth SADOULET, 2016. "Review of Theories of Learning for Adopting," Working Papers P163, FERDI.
    15. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2015. "Norm enforcement in social dilemmas: An experiment with police commissioners," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 74-85.
    16. El Harbi, Sana & Bekir, Insaf & Grolleau, Gilles & Sutan, Angela, 2015. "Efficiency, equality, positionality: What do people maximize? Experimental vs. hypothetical evidence from Tunisia," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 77-84.
    17. Marius Protte, 2025. "Explaining Apparently Inaccurate Self-assessments of Relative Performance: A Replication and Adaptation of 'Overconfident: Do you put your money on it?' by Hoelzl and Rustichini (2005)," Papers 2507.15568, arXiv.org.
    18. Choi, S. & Goyal, G. & Moisan, F., 2020. "Large Scale Experiments on Networks: A New Platform with Applications," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2063, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    19. Charles Bellemare & Luc Bissonnette & Sabine Kröger, 2010. "Bounding preference parameters under different assumptions about beliefs: a partial identification approach," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(3), pages 334-345, September.
    20. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    21. Bellemare, Charles & Bissonnette, Luc & Kröger, Sabine, 2007. "Flexible Approximation of Subjective Expectations Using Probability Questions: An Application to the Investment Game," IZA Discussion Papers 3121, IZA Network @ LISER.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2510.04785. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    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.