IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2308.09818.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Paths to Influence: How Coordinated Influence Operations Affect the Prominence of Ideas

Author

Listed:
  • Darren L. Linvill
  • Patrick L. Warren

Abstract

This paper presents four examples of different ways that coordinated influence operations exert pressure on the prominence of ideas on social networks. We argue that these examples illustrate the four archetypical paths to influence: promotion by strengthening, promotion by weakening, demotion by strengthening, and demotion by weakening. We formalize this idea in a stylized economic model of the optimal behavior of the influence operator and derive some predictions about when we should expect each path to be followed. Finally we sketch out how one might go about quantitatively estimating the key parameters of (a variant of) this model and how it applies much more broadly than in the international political influence examples that motivate it.

Suggested Citation

  • Darren L. Linvill & Patrick L. Warren, 2023. "Paths to Influence: How Coordinated Influence Operations Affect the Prominence of Ideas," Papers 2308.09818, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2308.09818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.09818
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dina Mayzlin & Yaniv Dover & Judith Chevalier, 2014. "Promotional Reviews: An Empirical Investigation of Online Review Manipulation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(8), pages 2421-2455, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hui, Xiang & Klein, Tobias & Stahl, Konrad, 2022. "Learning from Online Ratings," CEPR Discussion Papers 17006, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. M. Narciso, 2022. "The Unreliability of Online Review Mechanisms," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 349-368, September.
    3. Lanfei Shi & Siva Viswanathan, 2023. "Optional Verification and Signaling in Online Matching Markets: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1603-1621, December.
    4. Inmaculada Rabadán-Martín & Francisco Aguado-Correa & Nuria Padilla-Garrido, 2020. "Online reputation of 4- and 5-star hotels," Tourism and Hospitality Management, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management, vol. 26(1), pages 157-172, June.
    5. Claudia Keser & Maximilian Späth, 2020. "The Value of Bad Ratings: An Experiment on the Impact of Distortions in Reputation Systems," CIRANO Working Papers 2020s-22, CIRANO.
    6. Natalia Levina & Manuel Arriaga, 2014. "Distinction and Status Production on User-Generated Content Platforms: Using Bourdieu’s Theory of Cultural Production to Understand Social Dynamics in Online Fields," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 468-488, September.
    7. Balázs Kovács, 2024. "The Turing test of online reviews: Can we tell the difference between human-written and GPT-4-written online reviews?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 651-666, December.
    8. Michael Luca & Georgios Zervas, 2013. "Fake It Till You Make It: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud," Harvard Business School Working Papers 14-006, Harvard Business School, revised May 2015.
    9. Broere, Mark & Christmann, Robin, 2024. "Signaling and Fraud when Crowdfunding Campaigns Compete for Pledges," MPRA Paper 121784, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Hülya Karaman, 2021. "Online Review Solicitations Reduce Extremity Bias in Online Review Distributions and Increase Their Representativeness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4420-4445, July.
    11. Sungsik Park & Woochoel Shin & Jinhong Xie, 2021. "The Fateful First Consumer Review," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 481-507, May.
    12. Boris Knapp, 2021. "Fake Reviews and Naive Consumers," Vienna Economics Papers 2102, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    13. Lingfang (Ivy) Li & Steven Tadelis & Xiaolan Zhou, 2020. "Buying reputation as a signal of quality: Evidence from an online marketplace," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(4), pages 965-988, December.
    14. Angela Aerry Choi & Daegon Cho & Dobin Yim & Jae Yun Moon & Wonseok Oh, 2019. "When Seeing Helps Believing: The Interactive Effects of Previews and Reviews on E-Book Purchases," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 1164-1183, December.
    15. Li, Yimeng & Xiong, Yu & Mariuzzo, Franco & Xia, Senmao, 2021. "The underexplored impacts of online consumer reviews: Pricing and new product design strategies in the O2O supply chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    16. Plé, Loïc & Demangeot, Catherine, 2020. "Social contagion of online and offline deviant behaviors and its value outcomes: The case of tourism ecosystems," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 886-896.
    17. Sunyoung Hlee & Hanna Lee & Chulmo Koo, 2018. "Hospitality and Tourism Online Review Research: A Systematic Analysis and Heuristic-Systematic Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-27, April.
    18. Cristiano Codagnone & Federico Biagi & Fabienne Abadie, 2016. "The Passions and the Interests: Unpacking the ‘Sharing Economy’," JRC Research Reports JRC101279, Joint Research Centre.
    19. Gesche, Tobias, 2018. "Reference Price Shifts and Customer Antagonism: Evidence from Reviews for Online Auctions," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181650, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    20. Dominik Gutt & Jürgen Neumann & Steffen Zimmermann & Dennis Kundisch & Jianqing Chen, 2018. "Design of Review Systems - A Strategic Instrument to shape Online Review Behavior and Economic Outcomes," Working Papers Dissertations 42, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2308.09818. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.