The way information spreads through social networks has been an incredibly popular topic of research in recent years, as authors have attempted to better understand how misinformation thrives, and of course, how one can better change behaviors within a network.

For instance, a study from last summer that looked at the issue in relation to health scares.  The researchers raise the example of the swine flu outbreak in 2009 and the way panic quickly spread online, causing peculiar behaviors across Asia driven by the misinformation posted online.

They suggest that the degree of connectivity within a network is a strong indicator of how rapidly (mis)information may spread.

A second study from earlier last summer showed the influence of certain ‘nodes’ in the spread of information.  It explored political discourse online, and found that certain influential voices would be incredibly influential in the general online discussion, with many people simply regurgitating what those influencers said on a topic.

You might imagine that news organizations fit the bill as such an influencer, and that was the finding of a recent study that cast blame on the media for failing to do their part in ensuring the accuracy of the information they share.

Is it all about the boundaries?

What can a recent paper from the University of Pennsylvania bring to the mix?  It attempts to highlight how social networks form, and therefore how ideas spread across them.

It finds that the breaking down of boundaries between groups may appear to make knowledge sharing and idea diffusion easier, but it actually lessens the spread.  The best idea diffusion occurs when some level of group boundaries are retained.

The authors use examples from the workplace, where, for instance, employers may remove clubs that effectively segregate employees.  They suggest this may actually reduce the spread of ideas.

The authors tested their theory using a computational model to test how social affiliations lead to the creation of social networks, and then how ideas spread through those networks.

The model relied upon various personal characteristics (such as our education, political views, gender and so on) defining our identity, with society then being structured according to the extent of correlation between people.

“The results are surprisingly clear,” the authors say. “The stronger these correlations are, the more ‘grouped’ the entire social network is. Small changes in the correlations between two characteristics, for instance religion and residential neighborhood, have large consequences for the ‘groupiness’ of the social network.”

Removing boundaries has limitations

The study found that the removal of boundaries between groups did result in a greater chance of idea spread, but that this only helped to a degree.

“When a society is too grouped, people do not have any social contact with people from other groups,” the authors say. “People with the same job all attended the same school, live in the same neighborhood and frequent the same clubs. Their networks do not expand beyond that group.”

When these incredibly tight boundaries are relaxed, it means we have much greater diversity in our social network, but still enough of a bond to bind us together.

The similarities within the group help to encourage adoption of complex ideas, but the relaxed boundaries help it to spread to other groups too.

If boundaries scarcely exist at all however, then the group is too diverse and there is no common ground to bind them together, which therefore reduces any influence individual members have over each other.  It’s a theme I touched on in a post earlier this year after another study same to a similar conclusion.

“There’s a belief that the more that people interact with strangers, the more that new ideas and beliefs will spread,” the authors reveal. “What this study shows is that preserving group boundaries is actually necessary for complex ideas to become accepted across diverse populations.”

What’s more, this is particularly so when the ideas we’re hoping to adopt are complex in nature, such as a new innovation within our organizations for instance.

It’s tempting to think of thought diversity as something that offers nothing but good, but this study joins the many others that highlight the importance of boundaries to help bind us together.