*
Summaries on Complex Contagions & Behavior Change*
There are two books by Damon Centola (https://www.damoncentola.com/),
both of which Tom Woodroof have written summaries of:
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZOK6Hv9i1sM7uPd8Xjk6qbJySapPRnimnErL-0cKl4w/edit#
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1--NlCdnbYu7I1F0Img5iE1afXdnsqo903zf3jnfCkOY/edit#heading=h.qve2gb7t94qm
[dorian] dorian <https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian>
Community Weaver
April 14
Sorry I wasn’t able to join your event, @tonyb
<https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/tonyb>. But thanks a lot for
sharing these summaries :raised_hands:
Here are the key takeaways I’m drawing from these two docs:
*
*Tightly-knit, clustered social groups (such as groups of mutual
friends) fostering strong relational ties are key to the spread of
new norms and complex behaviours.* Conversely, weak ties connecting
huge numbers of less-familiar people across a network are mostly
useful to spread information, memes, or viruses (via simple
contagion) - but not the adoption of new norms, behaviours or
practices that entail some element of risk. Overcoming this risk
requires constant affirmation, ongoing maintenance, and
reinforcement from multiple points of contact around oneself who are
undertaking the same changes - otherwise it’s easy to grow
discouraged and abandon the change. *Creating a sense of social
confirmation is critical to the spread of “complex contagions”.*
*
*For a contagion to spread from one clustered group to another,
“wide bridges” (multiple interpersonal ties between people in
different groups, neighbourhoods, etc.) are essential.* “Narrow
bridges” (connecting just one broker from one group with another
broker from another group) are not enough. In fact, brokers’
privileged structural position can actually hinder the spread of
innovative practises.
*
So i*t is much more efficient to cultivate social incubators of
innovation locally, than to try relying on central influencers to
spread complex changes in behaviour.*
*
*Participants who start off most resistant to embracing a complex
change often become the most committed to this change once they do
embrace it:* the same factors that make a behaviour complex also
make it “sticky.”
*
*The more connected people are, the less likely they are to adopt a
new idea of behaviour* - because humans tend to assess
ideas/behaviours in terms of the fraction of people in our network
who have already adopted it (not by the absolute number). So if I’m
connected to thousands of people, and only a small percentage of
them have embraced this idea, it has very little legitimacy for me:
the non-adopters act as countervailing influences on me.
*
So *it is much more likely that someone at the periphery of a
network, with a more modest number of connections, will embrace a
complex change:* their adoption threshold will be lower. It is
therefore possible for an innovation to take hold, gain momentum,
and spread through the periphery until it becomes impossible to
ignore, even for people at the network’s centre. *Across a variety
of contexts, the network periphery is needed to spark and support
meaningful social change.*
*
Therefore, *a key strategy for spreading new norms and behaviours in
networks is to foster tightly-knit groups of adopters in a local,
peripheral setting,* who will mutually reinforce each others’
choices as they cultivate social change. Then, wide bridges with
other tightly-knit groups should be built for these social
innovations (or social movements, like the #BLM example) to spread
more widely.
*
For innovations that require more social proof that something will
be useful, or else emotional excitement, loyalty, or solidarity,
then *similarity* among reinforcing contacts is key. But for change
that requires legitimacy (the sense that sth is widely accepted),
then *diversity* among adopters is critical: otherwise it will look
like the innovation only concerns a particular clique/type/social class.
*
*When the proportion of activists committed to overturning a
particular norm in a network exceeds 25% of the population, they
succeed every time*. A social tipping point then occurs.
*
*Teams of diverse, complementary people who function in clusters
that do not exchange information so freely among themselves, are
much more innovative than teams in which everyone is connected to
everyone else:* this leads to everyone looking at the problem in the
same way by focusing on “easy/obvious” solutions.
*
*Overly centralised networks tend to allow the people at the centre
to spread their biases (as memes/viruses/information) across entire
populations*. In contrast, challenging ideas, as complex contagions,
typically emerge at the egalitarian, moderately-connected network
periphery**, away from the overwhelming countervailing influences
faced by those at the centre. *Influencers can spread simple
contagions, but not complex ones.*
*
*Egalitarian network structures for exchanging opinions can have
incredibly powerful effects in helping people overcome their
biases.* This is all the more noticeable when voices are brought in
from the network periphery.
This provides food for thought and confirmation in terms of what I think
many of us have been doing in DAF… :thinking:
For example:
* fostering small crews, communities of practice, and local community
groups appears essential to cultivating social innovation and
nurturing the spread of a “DA mindset”. Conversely, if one is left
on their own, it is easy to grow discouraged by all the people
around who are /not/ embracing this change;
* if innovations are to travel from DAF into other places,
network-weaving between our networks/community and others should not
be left to just one or two people, but should involve multiple
people creating mutually reinforcing relationships;
* having a less centralised network structure in DAF also appears
essential to foster social learning and creativity across various
clusters doing their thing.
Lots more to explore I’m sure. Any comments/feedback welcome :slight_smile:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit Topic
<https://community.deepadaptation.info/t/damon-centola-two-book-summaries-on-behavior-change/1601/3>
to respond.
@dorian <https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian> Your rigorous
summary of Centola’s work is exactly what we need to improve our
community practices and develop a better understanding of the concepts
Centola presents. I’m so grateful for your work, sharing your time, and
talent. Thanks again and again.
More Fun and Less Stuff,
Until next time, Tony Budak,
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
