scholarly journals A stochastic evolutionary growth model for social networks

2007 ◽  
Vol 51 (16) ◽  
pp. 4586-4595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor Fenner ◽  
Mark Levene ◽  
George Loizou ◽  
George Roussos
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel Almudi ◽  
Francisco Fatts-Villafranca ◽  
Gloria Jarne ◽  
Julio SSnchez Chhliz

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 392-430
Author(s):  
Isabel Almudi ◽  
Francisco Fatas‐Villafranca ◽  
Gloria Jarne ◽  
Julio Sanchez‐Choliz

Author(s):  
Jonathan A. J. Wilson

With the emergence of schools of thought which examine brands and branding according to relationships, brand communities, and popular culture, consumers are becoming more significant in shaping the brand agenda. Furthermore, the evolutionary growth and mutations spawned by Web 2.0 draw non-brand users, social networks, and anti-branding movements towards engagement and the possession of greater social capital. When gifting stakeholders with a larger share of voice, consumption definitions become judged less by tangible transactions; and more by figurative, intangible, and co-dependent communication drivers. In addition, with the increase in interactivity afforded by media channels, two-way communication, and the inclusion of more parties; a normalisation and levelling of information also occurs. Therefore, this chapter presents stakeholders as occupying grouped, interconnected, and dynamic states, which are subject to time-specific communication, influence, and self defined legitimacy. Following this, the creation of brands becomes a collaborative process with brands seeking to engage consumers in new and innovative ways in order to gain authenticity.


Author(s):  
Mark E. Dickison ◽  
Matteo Magnani ◽  
Luca Rossi

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana-Maria Vranceanu ◽  
Linda C. Gallo ◽  
Laura M. Bogart

The present study investigated whether a social information processing bias contributes to the inverse association between trait hostility and perceived social support. A sample of 104 undergraduates (50 men) completed a measure of hostility and rated videotaped interactions in which a speaker disclosed a problem while a listener reacted ambiguously. Results showed that hostile persons rated listeners as less friendly and socially supportive across six conversations, although the nature of the hostility effect varied by sex, target rated, and manner in which support was assessed. Hostility and target interactively impacted ratings of support and affiliation only for men. At least in part, a social information processing bias could contribute to hostile persons' perceptions of their social networks.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document