Influencing from the Edge
In examining the structure of opinion leadership, the Tarde article really forced me to think about the role of homophily and heterophily in the search process and the diffusion of information. Since Burt structurally positions opinion leaders as those bridging nonredundant ties and straddling the edges of many circles, it is difficult to understand how these opinion “brokers” are granted access into multiple groups that are heterogenous enough to have nonredundant ties. Tarde suggests that greater social participation and accessibility afford opinion leaders more diverse social circles, however I’m not quite convinced that precious information from these circles will be diffused simply on account of co-membership in an organization. It has been my experience that it takes more than simple membership but rather a deep bond with an organization before one can capitalize on coveted information and connections possessed by group members.
Question:
How are opinion brokers structurally similar enough with those in different clusters to relate to and influence group members, while simultaneously heterogenous enough to integrate into several other social circles?
Perhaps there are marked differences in diffusion of informational flow vs. a purposeful search for information. When in search mode for example, the Curtis and Lambert piece spoke to the importance of social cognitive mapping. Apparently when one is seeking a specific type of assistance the better developed this “map” is, the more likely one is to find the resources desired. Diffusion differs in that is usually a natural process of information flow. It’s more a case of chance and good timing than strategic goal attainment.
I was also interested in the Curtis and Lambert discussion of social acceptability of deviant intentions and the likelihood of these intentions converting into actions. Usually in highly homophilous networks where deviant actions are not well tolerated, intentions are the only form of social deviance that can survive, however, the more developed one’s social cognitive map, the more likely he or she will be linked to targets in covert circles who can turn deviant intentions into actions! The element of scope is another important element of this article further complicating matters. When speaking of deviance it can be on an individual level versus a community level. There are instances where deviance is the norm, therefore, these highly homophilous networks aid in a search for performing deviant acts. Bridging ties are especially important in covert network analysis since the less knowledge one has of her social cognitive map, the less likely she is to be successful.
Burt’s assertion that contagion stems from equivalence was quite and interesting since many people tend to think of opinion leaders as those central to a group as opposed to those who have the most heterogenous strong ties to mutiple groups. The fact that structural similarity breeds influence has quite significant implications for public health campaigns and other socially relevant messages targeted at changing the behaviors of the masses. As shown through the research in the Tarde article, when opinion leaders were sent to promote natural birth there was an 85% increase in adoption of vaginal birth delivery compared to no significant results of an audit campaign. This shows that perhaps the most effective and monetarily attractive method of changing behavior in a group is through targeting the message to opinion leaders.
Question:
Describe how HIV education campaigns and Anti-smoking initiatives could benefit from a shift in strategy to winning over opinion leaders.