1932

Abstract

The integration of social science with computer science and engineering fields has produced a new area of study: computational social science. This field applies computational methods to novel sources of digital data such as social media, administrative records, and historical archives to develop theories of human behavior. We review the evolution of this field within sociology via bibliometric analysis and in-depth analysis of the following subfields where this new work is appearing most rapidly: () social network analysis and group formation; () collective behavior and political sociology; () the sociology of knowledge; () cultural sociology, social psychology, and emotions; () the production of culture; () economic sociology and organizations; and () demography and population studies. Our review reveals that sociologists are not only at the center of cutting-edge research that addresses longstanding questions about human behavior but also developing new lines of inquiry about digital spaces as well. We conclude by discussing challenging new obstacles in the field, calling for increased attention to sociological theory, and identifying new areas where computational social science might be further integrated into mainstream sociology.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054621
2020-07-30
2024-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/46/1/annurev-soc-121919-054621.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054621&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abul-Fottouh D, Fetner T. 2018. Solidarity or schism: ideological congruence and the Twitter networks of Egyptian activists. Mobil.: Int. Q. 23:23–44
    [Google Scholar]
  2. adams J, Light R 2015. Scientific consensus, the law, and same sex parenting outcomes. Soc. Sci. Res. 53:300–10
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AlMaghlouth N, Arvanitis R, Cointet JP, Hanafi S 2015. Who frames the debate on the Arab uprisings? Analysis of Arabic, English, and French academic scholarship. Int. Sociol. 30:418–41
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Araujo M, Mejova Y, Weber I, Benevenuto F 2017. Using Facebook ads audiences for global lifestyle disease surveillance: promises and limitations. ArXiv:1705.04045 [cs.CY]
  5. Askarisichani O, Lane JN, Bullo F, Friedkin NE, Singh AK, Uzzi B 2019. Structural balance emerges and explains performance in risky decision-making. Nat. Commun. 10:2648
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Askin N, Mauskapf M. 2017. What makes popular culture popular? Product features and optimal differentiation in music. Am. Sociol. Rev. 82:910–44
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bail CA. 2014. The cultural environment: measuring culture with big data. Theory Soc 43:465–82
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bail CA. 2015. Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  9. Bail CA. 2016a. Combining natural language processing and network analysis to examine how advocacy organizations stimulate conversation on social media. PNAS 113:11823–28
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bail CA. 2016b. Cultural carrying capacity: organ donation advocacy, discursive framing, and social media engagement. Soc. Sci. Med. 165:280–88
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bail CA. 2016c. Emotional feedback and the viral spread of social media messages about autism spectrum disorders. Am. J. Public Health 106:1173–80
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bail CA, Brown TW, Mann M 2017. Channeling hearts and minds: advocacy organizations, cognitive-emotional currents, and public conversation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 82:1188–213
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bail CA, Brown TW, Wimmer A 2019. Prestige, proximity, and prejudice: how Google search terms diffuse across the world. Am. J. Sociol. 124:1496–548
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bail CA, Merhout F, Ding P 2018a. Using Internet search data to examine the relationship between anti-Muslim and pro-ISIS sentiment in U.S. counties. Sci. Adv. 4:eaao5948
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bail CA, Volfovsky A, Argyle LP, Brown TW, Bumpus JP et al. 2018b. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. PNAS 115:9216–21
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Baldassarri D, Bearman P. 2007. Dynamics of political polarization. Am. Sociol. Rev. 72:784–811
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Barberá P, Wang N, Bonneau R, Jost JT, Nagler J et al. 2015. The critical periphery in the growth of social protests. PLOS ONE 10:e0143611
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Becker J, Porter E, Centola D 2019. The wisdom of partisan crowds. PNAS 116:10717–22
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bonikowski B, Gidron N. 2016. The populist style in American politics: presidential campaign discourse, 1952–96. Soc. Forces 94:1593–621
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Boutyline A, Willer R. 2017. The social structure of political echo chambers: variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychol 38:551–69
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Brayne S. 2020. Policing Data Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
  22. Bruch E, Atwell J. 2015. Agent-based models in empirical social research. Sociol. Methods Res. 44:186–221
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Bruch E, Feinberg F, Lee KY 2016. Extracting multistage screening rules from online dating activity data. PNAS 113:10530–35
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Bruch E, Newman MEJ. 2018. Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets. Sci. Adv. 4:eaap9815
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Bruggeman J, Traag VA, Uitermark J 2012. Detecting communities through network data. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77:1050–63
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Carley K. 1991. A theory of group stability. Am. Sociol. Rev. 56:331–54
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Centola D. 2010. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329:1194–97
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Centola D, Baronchelli A. 2015. The spontaneous emergence of conventions: an experimental study of cultural evolution. PNAS 112:1989–94
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Centola D, Becker J, Brackbill D, Baronchelli A 2018. Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention. Science 360:1116–19
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Centola D, Macy M. 2007. Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. Am. J. Sociol. 113:702–34
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Cesare N, Lee H, McCormick T, Spiro E, Zagheni E 2018. Promises and pitfalls of using digital traces for demographic research. Demography 55:1979–99
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Chakrabarti P, Frye M. 2017. A mixed-methods framework for analyzing text data: integrating computational techniques with qualitative methods in demography. Demogr. Res. 37:1351–82
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Chen Y, Yan F. 2016. Economic performance and public concerns about social class in twentieth-century books. Soc. Sci. Res. 59:37–51
    [Google Scholar]
  34. de Vaan M, Stark D, Vedres B 2015. Game changer: the topology of creativity. Am. J. Sociol. 120:1144–94
    [Google Scholar]
  35. DellaPosta D, Shi Y, Macy M 2015. Why do liberals drink lattes. Am. J. Sociol. 120:1473–511
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Dodds PS, Muhamad R, Watts DJ 2003. An experimental study of search in global social networks. Science 301:827–29
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Eagle N, Macy M, Claxton R 2010. Network diversity and economic development. Science 328:1029–31
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Edelmann A, Moody J, Light R 2017. Disparate foundations of scientists’ policy positions on contentious biomedical research. PNAS 114:6262–67
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Evans ED, Gomez CJ, McFarland DA 2016. Measuring paradigmaticness of disciplines using text. Sociol. Sci. 3:757–78
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Evans JA, Aceves P. 2016. Machine translation: mining text for social theory. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 42:21–50
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Evans JA, Foster JG. 2011. Metaknowledge. Science 331:721–25
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Farrell J. 2016a. Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. PNAS 113:92–97
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Farrell J. 2016b. Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement. Nat. Clim. Change 6:370–74
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Fatehkia M, Kashyap R, Weber I 2018. Using Facebook ad data to track the global digital gender gap. World Dev 107:189–209
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Feinberg M, Willer R. 2015. From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41:1665–81
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Flores RD. 2017. Do anti-immigrant laws shape public sentiment? A study of Arizona's SB 1070 using Twitter data. Am. J. Sociol. 123:333–84
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Foster JG. 2018. Culture and computation: steps to a probably approximately correct theory of culture. Poetics 68:144–54
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Foster JG, Rzhetsky A, Evans JA 2015. Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80:875–908
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Gamson W, Peppers L. 1966. SIMSOC: Simulated Society, Coordinator's Manual New York: Simon & Schuster
  50. Gebru R, Krause J, Wang Y, Chen D, Deng J et al. 2017. Using deep learning and Google street view to estimate the demographic makeup of neighborhoods across the United States. PNAS 114:13108–13
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Goldberg A, Hannan MT, Kovács B 2016a. What does it mean to span cultural boundaries? Variety and atypicality in cultural consumption. Am. Sociol. Rev. 81:215–41
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Goldberg A, Srivastava SB, Manian VG, Monroe W, Potts C 2016b. Fitting in or standing out? The tradeoffs of structural and cultural embeddedness. Am. Sociol. Rev. 81:1190–222
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Golder S, Macy M. 2011. Diurnal and seasonal mood vary with work, sleep, and daylength across diverse cultures. Science 333:60511878–81
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Golder S, Macy M. 2014. Digital footprints: opportunities and challenges for social research. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 40:129–52
    [Google Scholar]
  55. González-Bailón S, Borge-Holthoefer J, Moreno Y 2013. Broadcasters and hidden influentials in online protest diffusion. Am. Behav. Sci. 57:943–65
    [Google Scholar]
  56. González-Bailón S, Wang N. 2016. Networked discontent: the anatomy of protest campaigns in social media. Soc. Netw. 44:95–104
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Guilbeault D, Becker J, Centola D 2018. Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends. PNAS 115:9714–19
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hanna A. 2013. Computer-aided content analysis of digitally enabled movements. Mobil.: Int. Q. 18:367–88
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Heerwig JA. 2017. Money in the middle: contribution strategies among affluent donors to federal elections, 1980–2008. Am. J. Sociol. 123:1004–63
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Helbing D, Farkas, Vicsek T 2000. Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature 407:487–90
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Helleringer S, You C, Fleury L, Douillot L, Diouf I et al. 2019. Improving age measurement in low- and middle-income countries through computer vision: a test in Senegal. Demogr. Res. 40:219–60
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Hobbs WR, Burke M, Christakis NA, Fowler JH 2016. Online social integration is associated with reduced mortality risk. PNAS 113:12980–84
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Hoffman MA. 2019. The materiality of ideology: cultural consumption and political thought after the American Revolution. Am. J. Sociol. 125:1–62
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Horvát , Uparna J, Uzzi B 2015. Network versus market relations: the effect of friends in crowdfunding. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2015—ASONAM ’15 J Pei, F Silvestri, J Tang 226–33 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kaplanis J, Gordon A, Shor T, Weissbrod O, Geiger D et al. 2018. Quantitative analysis of population-scale family trees with millions of relatives. Science 360:171–75
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Kashyap R, Villavicencio F. 2016. The dynamics of son preference, technology diffusion, and fertility decline underlying distorted sex ratios at birth: a simulation approach. Demography 53:1261–81
    [Google Scholar]
  67. King G, Persily N. 2019. A new model for industry-academic partnerships. PS: Political Sci. Politics. http://j.mp/2q1IQpH
    [Google Scholar]
  68. King MM, Bergstrom CT, Correll SJ, Jacquet J, West JD 2017. Men set their own cites high: gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Socius 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117738903
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  69. Kitts JA, Lomi A, Mascia D, Pallotti F, Quintane E 2017. Investigating the temporal dynamics of interorganizational exchange: patient transfers among Italian hospitals. Am. J. Sociol. 123:850–910
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Kossinets G, Watts DJ. 2006. Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science 311:88–90
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Kozlowski AC, Taddy M, Evans JA 2019. The geometry of culture: analyzing meaning through word embeddings. Am. Sociol. Rev. 84:905–49
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Lazer D, Pentland A, Adamic L, Aral S, Barabasi AL et al. 2009. Computational social science. Science 323:721–23
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Leahey E, Moody J. 2014. Sociological innovation through subfield integration. Soc. Curr. 1:228–56
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Lewis K. 2013. The limits of racial prejudice. PNAS 110:18814–19
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Lewis K, Gray K, Meierhenrich J 2014. The structure of online activism. Sociol. Sci. 1:1–9
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Li J, Yin Y, Fortunato S, Wang D 2019. A dataset of publication records for Nobel laureates. Sci. Data 6:33
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Light R, Odden C. 2017. Managing the boundaries of taste: culture, valuation, and computational social science. Soc. Forces 96:877–908
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Lin K-H, Lundquist J. 2013. Mate selection in cyberspace: the intersection of race, gender, and education. Am. J. Sociol. 119:183–215
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Liu B, Govindan R, Uzzi B 2016. Do emotions expressed online correlate with actual changes in decision-making?: The case of stock day traders. PLOS ONE 11:e0144945
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Lundberg I, Narayanan A, Levy K, Salganik MJ 2018. Privacy, ethics, and data access: a case study of the Fragile Families Challenge. ArXiv:1809.00103 [cs.CY]
  81. Lutter M. 2015. Do women suffer from network closure? The moderating effect of social capital on gender inequality in a project-based labor market, 1929 to 2010. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80:329–58
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Ma Y, Uzzi B. 2018. Scientific prize network predicts who pushes the boundaries of science. PNAS 115:5012608–15
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Macy MW. 2016. An emerging trend: Is big data the end of theory?. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences RA Scott, S Kosslyn 1–14 Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Macy MW, Willer R. 2002. From factors to actors: computational sociology and agent-based modeling. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 28:143–66
    [Google Scholar]
  85. McCormick RH, Lee H, Cesare N, Shojaie A, Spiro ES 2017. Using Twitter for demographic and social science research: tools for data collection and processing. Sociol. Methods Res. 46:390–421
    [Google Scholar]
  86. McFarland D, Lewis K, Goldberg A 2015. Sociology in the era of big data: the ascent of forensic social science. Am. Sociol. 47:12–35
    [Google Scholar]
  87. McMahan P, Evans JA. 2018. Ambiguity and engagement. Am. J. Sociol. 124:860–912
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Molina M, Garip F. 2019. Machine learning for sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 45:27–45
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Moreno MA, Christakis DA, Egan KG, Brockman LN, Becker R 2012. Associations between displayed alcohol references on Facebook and problem drinking among college students. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 166:157–63
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Nelson LK. 2017. Computational grounded theory: a methodological framework. Sociol. Methods Res. 49:3–42
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Ojala J, Zagheni E, Billari FC, Weber I 2017. Fertility and its meaning: evidence from search behavior. ArXiv:1703.03935 [cs.CY]
  92. Palmer JRB, Espenshade TJ, Bartumeus F, Chung CY, Ozgencil NE, Li K 2013. New approaches to human mobility: using mobile phones for demographic research. Demography 50:1105–28
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Park PS, Blumenstock JE, Macy MW 2018. The strength of long-range ties in population-scale social networks. Science 362:64211410–13
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Pentland A. 2015. Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter New York, NY: Penguin Books
  95. Potârcă G, Mills M. 2015. Racial preferences in online dating across European countries. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 31:326–41
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Rampazzo F, Zagheni E, Weber I, Testa MR, Billari F 2018. Mater certa est, pater numquam What can Facebook advertising data tell us about male fertility rates? ArXiv:1804.04632 [cs.CY]
  97. Rawlings CM, McFarland DA. 2011. Influence flows in the academy: using affiliation networks to assess peer effects among researchers. Soc. Sci. Res. 40:1001–17
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Rawlings CM, McFarland DA, Dahlander L, Wang D 2015. Streams of thought: knowledge flows and intellectual cohesion in a multidisciplinary era. Soc. Forces 93:1687–722
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Romero DM, Swaab RI, Uzzi B, Galinsky AD 2015. Mimicry is presidential: linguistic style matching in presidential debates and improved polling numbers. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41:1311–19
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Rossman G, Esparza N, Bonacich P 2010. I'd like to thank the Academy, team spillovers, and network centrality. Am. Sociol. Rev. 75:31–51
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Rossman G, Schilke O. 2014. Close, but no cigar: the bimodal rewards to prize-seeking. Am. Sociol. Rev. 79:86–108
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Rzhetsky A, Foster JG, Foster IT, Evans JA 2015. Choosing experiments to accelerate collective discovery. PNAS 112:14569–74
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Saavedra S, Duch J, Uzzi B 2011a. Tracking traders’ understanding of the market using e-communication data. PLOS ONE 6:e26705
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Saavedra S, Hagerty K, Uzzi B 2011b. Synchronicity, instant messaging, and performance among financial traders. PNAS 108:5296–301
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Salganik M. 2018. Bit by Bit: Social Research in the Digital Age Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  106. Salganik MJ, Dodds PS, Watts DJ 2006. Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311:854–56
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Salganik MJ, Lundberg I, Kindel AT, Ahearn CE, Al-Ghoneim K et al. 2020. Measuring the predictability of life outcomes with a scientific mass collaboration. PNAS https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1915006117
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  108. Salganik MJ, Watts DJ. 2008. Leading the herd astray: an experimental study of self-fulfilling prophecies in an artificial cultural market. Soc. Psychol. Q. 71:338–55
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Schnable A. 2016. What religion affords grassroots NGOs: frames, networks, modes of action. J. Sci. Study Relig. 55:216–32
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Schroeder R. 2010. Being There Together: Social Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  111. Shi F, Foster JG, Evans JA 2015. Weaving the fabric of science: dynamic network models of science's unfolding structure. Soc. Netw. 43:73–85
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Shi F, Shi Y, Dokshin FA, Evans JA, Macy MW 2017. Millions of online book co-purchases reveal partisan differences in the consumption of science. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1:0079
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Shirado H, Christakis NA. 2017. Locally noisy autonomous agents improve global human coordination in network experiments. Nature 545:370–74
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Shirado H, Iosifidis G, Tassiulas L, Christakis NA 2019. Resource sharing in technologically defined social networks. Nat. Commun. 10:1079
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Shor E, van de Rijt A, Miltsov A, Kulkarni V, Skiena S 2015. A paper ceiling: explaining the persistent underrepresentation of women in printed news. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80:960–84
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Shwed U. 2015. Robust science: passive smoking and scientific collaboration with the tobacco industry in the 1970s. Sociol. Sci. 2:158–85
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Shwed U, Bearman PS. 2010. The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 75:817–40
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Srivastava SB, Goldberg A, Manian VG, Potts C 2018. Enculturation trajectories: language, cultural adaptation, and individual outcomes in organizations. Manag. Sci. 64:1348–64
    [Google Scholar]
  119. State B, Rodriguez M, Helbing D, Zagheni E 2014. Migration of professionals to the U.S. Social Informatics: 6th International Conference, SocInfo 2014, Barcelona, Spain, November 1113, 2014. Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science LM Aiello, D McFarland 531–43 Cham, Switz: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Stewart I, Flores R, Riffe T, Weber I, Zagheni E 2019. Rock, rap, or reggaeton?: Assessing Mexican immigrants’ cultural assimilation using Facebook data. ArXiv:1902.09453 [cs.CY]
  121. Tufekci Z, Wilson C. 2012. Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: observations from Tahrir Square. J. Commun. 62:363–79
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B 2013. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342:468–72
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Vaillant GG, Tyagi J, Akin IA, Poma FP, Schwartz M, van de Rijt A 2015. A field-experimental study of emergent mobilization in online collective action. Mobil.: Int. Q. 20:281–303
    [Google Scholar]
  124. van de Rijt A. 2019. Self-correcting dynamics in social influence processes. Am. J. Sociol. 124:1468–95
    [Google Scholar]
  125. van de Rijt A, Akin IA, Willer R, Feinberg M 2016. Success-breeds-success in collective political behavior: evidence from a field experiment. Sociol. Sci. 3:940–50
    [Google Scholar]
  126. van de Rijt A, Kang SM, Restivo M, Patil A 2014. Field experiments of success-breeds-success dynamics. PNAS 111:6934–39
    [Google Scholar]
  127. van Loon A, Bailenson J, Zaki J, Bostick J, Willer R 2018. Virtual reality perspective-taking increases cognitive empathy for specific others. PLOS ONE 13:e0202442
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Vasi IB, Walker ET, Johnson JS, Tan HF 2015. “No Fracking Way!” Documentary film, discursive opportunity, and local opposition against hydraulic fracturing in the United States, 2010 to 2013. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80:934–59
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Vilhena DA, Foster JG, Rosvall M, West JD, Evans J, Bergstrom CT 2014. Finding cultural holes: how structure and culture diverge in networks of scholarly communication. Sociol. Sci. 1:221–39
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Wagner C, Graells-Garrido E, Garcia D, Menczer F 2016. Women through the glass ceiling: gender asymmetries in Wikipedia. EPJ Data Sci 5:5
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Wagner C, Singer P, Strohmaier M 2014. The nature and evolution of online food preferences. EPJ Data Sci 3:38
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Watts DJ. 1999. Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon. Am. J. Sociol. 105:493–527
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Watts DJ. 2004. Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
  134. Watts DJ. 2017. Should social science be more solution-oriented. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1:0015
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Watts DJ, Dodds P. 2007. Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. J. Consumer Res. 34:441–58
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Wells C, van Thomme J, Maurer P, Hanna A, Pevehouse J et al. 2016. Coproduction or cooptation? Real-time spin and social media response during the 2012 French and US presidential debates. French Politics 14:206–33
    [Google Scholar]
  137. West JD, Jacquet J, King MM, Correll SJ, Bergstrom CT 2013. The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLOS ONE 8:e66212
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Wu L, Wang D, Evans JA 2019. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature 566:378–82
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316:1036–39
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Yang Y, Chawla NV, Uzzi B 2019. A network's gender composition and communication pattern predict women's leadership success. PNAS 116:2033–38
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Zagheni E, Weber I, Gummadi K 2017. Leveraging Facebook's advertising platform to monitor stocks of migrants. Popul. Dev. Rev. 43:721–34
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Zhang H, Pan J. 2019. CASM: A deep-learning approach for identifying collective action events with text and image data from social media. Sociol. Methodol. 49:1–57
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054621
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054621
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error