The Social Network of Effects

The Social Network of Effects

The scenario- two customers walk into a restaurant. One leaves happily. The other has lots of complaints about service, quality of food, friendliness of staff and high pricing of insufficient food.

The complainer makes loud voices. He starts complaining on social media and directly to his friends. They in turn do the same. The snowballing effect starts.

The happy customer is less active. He reports his satisfaction on one social media platform and too few friends.
The accumulation effect starts. A considerable group of people standing by the complainer. A much smaller group caring for the happy customer. The polarizing effect starts. Following the stage of the Polarizing Effect comes the crowdedness effect in the big group. In some big groups some people feel neglected. The negligence effect initiates. The neglected individuals leave.

Here the dynamics become entangled whereby many forces operate. The big group attracts more members because people feel safer and wiser when they join bigger groups. It is what I call “The Grocery Effect” in operation. If there are two neighboring grocery shops one is crowded and the other is almost empty, which one would you buy from? Convenience would prompt you to go to the less crowded one. But then why is it almost empty? Why don’t other people go for their comfort as well? Most likely this shop is more expensive, or the customer isn’t well-received. Follow the crowd again and buy from the crowded one.

People in the large group may divert their attention to more important issues. The substitution effect starts. These people leak out of the group together with the members who feel neglected or unable to move freely in the crowded space. Other people develop different attitude to a rising issue have different perspectives now. They decide to leave the group and initiate a new group. Other people leave because of the Cliché Effect. They keep hearing the same words and feel bored. They leave and may join a new hive or group. Other members of the group may leave because of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Low-ability people tend to over-estimate their ability because of their association with able people. The association effect prompts some members to join friends for they have been together for some time. If not, the feelings of betrayal may prevail leading to strong repellence between them.

The social media has produced a network of effects. I tried to summarize them in the background image of this buzz. Are these emerging effects? One example our tendencies to do a favor or action for a person who would not have the same level of tendency to return favor. You like an author and like his/her buzz. You are more ready now to like more of his buzzes. This is known as the Ben Franklin effect.
You may have noticed that in exchanging discussions with others that you ended holding up the opinion of the person that you were trying to convince. This kind of “reverse results” is known as the boomerang effect.  

This applies to the dynamics of hives a well. A person may initiate a new hive group. I wonder if the Founder Effect would initiate as well. A founder effect occurs when a new colony is started by a few members of the original population. This small population size means that the colony may have:

· Reduced genetic variation from the original population.

· A non-random sample of the genes in the original population

Will having very specialized hives lead to genetic variations of the groups as well?

Social networks have very complex dynamics and trying to predict the future is like trying to paint an airplane while on flight.

I dedicate this buzz to Purnima Menon  who has been so kind and appreciative of my late buzzes.



#72 @Jean L. Serio CPC, CeMA- I stary my reply from where you ended your splendid comment. Studiies havvve shown that unhap]y and churned customers become the most loyal if they are won back. To reverse the thinking of those customers isn't easy but, as youvsuggested, if a company can do that then a hard battle is won. I fully concur with your comment.

0
Jean L. Serio CPC, CeMA 13/11/2017 · #72

I’d like to address your comments re customers who provide social reviews. Today many more are posting their reviews on social media, as your post suggests; their comments traveling at the speed of light over the Internet. Meaning a successful, profitable business can be brought to its knees, overnight, by a barrage of negative product/service comments or reviews. That said, these concerns can represent deep, serious company problems. Which a company can begin addressing with the help of these complaints. Plus, though time-consuming, I believe it’s necessary to actually have someone respond to these social reviews in order to let customers know the company understands the issues and their complaint isn’t falling on ‘deaf ears’. Bottom line, most unhappy customers can be turned into happy customers if you begin to show you are listening to them.

+1 +1

#70 thank you @Lada 🏡 Prkic. I might explore the reaction vessel in more depth. Your comments encourages me to do so

+2 +2
Lada 🏡 Prkic 12/11/2017 · #70

#69 Interesting comparison of social medium with a reaction vessel (pot). To understand the behaviour of so many reactants in the vessel requires knowledge and dedication which you possess.
I am just an occasional user of social media and an independent observer. :-)

+2 +2

#68 Thank you dear @Lada 🏡 Prkic for your beautiful comment. You are right, and some of these social effects may be noticed on beBee. After all, it is a societal platform.
You do understand my intention of publishing this buzz. There are so many factors in play, and trying to understand fully what goes on is not an easy task. However; we may notice the emerging of few phenomena and you highlighted two of them.
I feel sometimes we are in a reaction pot. To predict the output with only two reactants in the pot can be straightforward. But, what if we have twenty nine reactants in the pot? I chose 29 because the graph as 29 social phenomena.
Can we predict? At least I can predict your good mind will help us understand more.

+1 +1
Lada 🏡 Prkic 12/11/2017 · #68

Dear Ali, I started reading your post by studying the title diagram. I have to commend your effort for making such a complex diagram. Some of the effects, such as the Ringelmann Effect, I found very applicable in explaining activities inside the large beBee groups.
All effects show that human social behaviour is such a complex and unpredictable variable.
It is particularly interesting to follow the flow of users on beBee. People come and go. Once ardent supporters of some people and very active users, suddenly vanished as if they've never been on the network. Some other suddenly have become strong supporters and, in a way, blind followers demonstrating the Ben Franklin "method" of social networking.
I would like to have time to identify the presence of these effects in the behaviour of my followers (including mine). It would be a very interesting project. :-)

+1 +1

#66 I am so glad you stopped here to write a great comment @Geoff Hudson-Searle. You raisee so many important issues. Social competency and the "third wheel" as new competitor to the social fabric.
I shall not be surprised to have new need by the name of smsrtphone competency.
I have noticed that some people are so busy with their smart phones to the extent that if they were on the same escalator with Bill Gates they shall not notice him.
Social distraction is an emeging phenomena. We used to say that there is no better substitute to face-to-face meetings. Now I wonder the validity of this. Disruption of the social structure is obvious.

+2 +2
Geoff Hudson-Searle 11/11/2017 · #66

@Ali 🐝 Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee thank you for mentioning this buzz, you may be aware that this is one of my push buttons and a subject that I am hugely passionate about. If you are emotionally attached to your smartphone and rely on it every waking minute, it will harm your relationships – I find most accidents happen with people texting when they walk, not to mention what happens when you are in their line of the street. The new education for humans is how to avoid being knocked over by the person texting on their smartphone. So how does social media affect interaction in our society? Will face-to-face communication ultimately diminish because of these new social technologies? These questions are ones that many researchers have found extremely intriguing since the advent and popularisation of social media in the last decade. Within this topic, social competency is an important ideal that most people strive towards, but there is evidence to support the claims that social media is actually harming people’s ability to interact competently in an offline setting.
Psychologists claim that increasing numbers of people in long-term partnerships are having to compete with their partner’s smartphone for attention, making it the ‘third wheel’ in their relationship. While technology has allowed us some means of social connection that would have never been possible before, and has allowed us to maintain long-distance friendships that would have otherwise probably fallen by the wayside, the fact remains that it is causing us to spread ourselves too thin, as well as slowly ruining the quality of social interaction that we all need as human beings.

+2 +2