Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization


Human behaviour is thought to spread through face-to-face social networks, but it is difficult to identify social influence effects in observational studies9,10,11,12,13, and it is unknown whether online social networks operate in the same way1419. Here we report results from a randomized controlled trial of political mobilization messages delivered to 61 million Facebook users during the 2010 US congressional elections. The results show that the messages directly influenced political self-expression, information seeking and real-world voting behaviour of millions of people. Furthermore, the messages not only influenced the users who received them but also the users’ friends, and friends of friends. The effect of social transmission on real-world voting was greater than the direct effect of the messages themselves, and nearly all the transmission occurred between ‘close friends’ who were more likely to have a face-to-face relationship. These results suggest that strong ties are instrumental for spreading both online and real-world behaviour in human social networks.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: The experiment and direct effects.
Figure 2: The effect of mobilization treatment that a friend received on a user’s behaviour.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Berger, J. & Le Mens, G. How adoption speed affects the abandonment of cultural tastes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 8146–8150 (2009)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Borgatti, S. P. et al. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 323, 892–895 (2009)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ohtsuki, H., Hauert, C., Lieberman, E. & Nowak, M. A. A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature 441, 502–505 (2006)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Onnela, J. P. & Reed-Tsochas, F. Spontaneous emergence of social influence in online systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18375–18380 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Apicella, C. L., Marlowe, F. W., Fowler, J. H. & Christakis, N. A. Social networks and cooperation in hunter-gatherers. Nature 481, 497–501 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Aral, S. & Walker, D. Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks. Science 337, 337–341 (2012)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Centola, D. An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. Science 334, 1269–1272 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gonzalez-Bailon, S., Borge-Holthofer, J., Rivero, A. & Moreno, Y. The dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network. Sci. Rep. 1, 197 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Christakis, N. A. & Fowler, J. H. Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Preprint at (2011)

  10. Aral, S., Muchnik, L. & Sundararajan, A. Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 21544–21549 (2009)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Christakis, N. A. & Fowler, J. H. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N. Engl. J. Med. 357, 370–379 (2007)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fowler, J. H. & Christakis, N. A. The dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network. Br. Med. J. 337, a2338 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Christakis, N. A. & Fowler, J. H. The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. N. Engl. J. Med. 358, 2249–2258 (2008)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S. & Watts, D. J. Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311, 854–856 (2006)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Centola, D. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329, 1194–1197 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fowler, J. H. & Christakis, N. A. Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 5334–5338 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lazer, D. et al. Computational social science. Science 323, 721–723 (2009)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C. & Lampe, C. The benefits of facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 12, 1143–1168 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Traud, A. L., Kelsic, E. D., Mucha, P. J. & Porter, M. A. Comparing community structure to characteristics in online collegiate social networks. SIAM Rev. 53, 526–543 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Granovetter, M. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78, 1360–1380 (1973)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Christakis, N. A. & Fowler, J. H. Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives (Little, Brown, and Company, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nickerson, D. W. Does email boost turnout? Q. J. Polit. Sci. 2, 369–379 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kenny, C. B. Political participation and effects from the social environment. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 36, 259–267 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Huckfeldt, R. & Sprague, J. Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Gerber, A. S. & Green, D. P. Does canvassing increase voter turnout? A field experiment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 10939–10942 (1999)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P. & Larimer, C. W. Social pressure and voter turnout: evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 102, 33–48 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bryan, C. J., Walton, G. M., Rogers, T. & Dwecka, C. S. Motivating voter turnout by invoking the self. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 12653–12656 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Nickerson, D. W. Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 102, 49–57 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Vitak, J. et al. It's complicated: Facebook users' political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 14, 107–114 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fowler, J. H. in The Social Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior (ed. Zuckerman, A. ) 269–287 (Temple Univ. Press, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references


We are grateful to S. Aral, J. Berger, M. Cebrian, D. Centola, N. Christakis, C. Dawes, L. Gee, D. Green, C. Kam, P. Loewen, P. Mucha, J. P. Onnela, M. Porter, O. Smirnov and C. Volden for comments on early drafts. This work was supported in part by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, and the University of Notre Dame and the John Templeton Foundation as part of the Science of Generosity Initiative.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Author Contributions All authors contributed to study design, data collection, analysis and preparation of the manuscript. J.H.F. secured funding.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James H. Fowler.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Text and Data, Supplementary Tables 1-19, Supplementary Figures 1-6 and additional references. (PDF 4524 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bond, R., Fariss, C., Jones, J. et al. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489, 295–298 (2012).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing AI and Robotics

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics newsletter — what matters in AI and robotics research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics