Interest Assortativity in Twitter

Francesco Buccafurri, Gianluca Lax, Serena Nicolazzo, Antonino Nocera


Assortativity is the preference for a person to relate to others who are someway similar. This property has been widely studied in real-life social networks in the past and, more recently, great attention is devoted to study various forms of assortativity also in online social networks, being aware that it does not suffice to apply past scientific results obtained in the domain of real-life social networks. One of the aspects not yet analyzed in online social networks is interest assortativity, that is the preference for people to share the same interest (e.g., sport, music) with their friends. In this paper, we study this form of assortativity on Twitter, one of the most popular online social networks. After the introduction of the background theoretical model, we analyze Twitter, discovering that users clearly show interest assortativity. Beside the theoretical assessment, our result leads to identify a number of interesting possible applications.


  1. Ackland, R. (2013). Web social science: Concepts, data and tools for social scientists in the digital age. Sage.
  2. Ahn, Y., Han, S., Kwak, H., Moon, S., and Jeong, H. (2007). Analysis of topological characteristics of huge online social networking services. In Proc. of the International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW'07), pages 835-844, Banff, Alberta, Canada. ACM.
  3. Benevenuto, F., Rodrigues, T., Almeida, V., Almeida, J., and Gonc¸alves, M. (2009). Detecting spammers and content promoters in online video social networks. In Proc. of the International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR 7809), pages 620-627, Boston, MA, USA. ACM.
  4. Bliss, C., Kloumann, I., Harris, K., Danforth, C., and Dodds, P. (2012). Twitter reciprocal reply networks exhibit assortativity with respect to happiness. Journal of Computational Science, 3(5):388-397.
  5. Bollen, J., Gonc¸alves, B., Ruan, G., and Mao, H. (2011). Happiness is assortative in online social networks. Artificial life, 17(3):237-251.
  6. Buccafurri, F., Lax, G., Nicolazzo, S., and Nocera, A. (2014a). A Model to Support Multi-Social-Network Applications. In Proc. of the International Conference Ontologies, DataBases, and Applications of Semantics (ODBASE 2014), pages 639-656, Amantea, Italy. Springer.
  7. Buccafurri, F., Lax, G., Nicolazzo, S., Nocera, A., and Ursino, D. (2013). Measuring Betweennes Centrality in Social Internetworking Scenarios. In Proc. of International Workshop on Social and Mobile Computing for collaborative environments (SOMOCO'13), pages 666-673, Gratz, Austria. Springer Verlag.
  8. Buccafurri, F., Lax, G., Nicolazzo, S., Nocera, A., and Ursino, D. (2014b). Driving Global Team Formation in Social Networks to Obtain Diversity. In Proc. of the International Conference on Web Engineering (ICWE 2014), pages 410-419, Toulouse, France. Springer.
  9. Buccafurri, F., Lax, G., and Nocera, A. (2015). A new form of assortativity in online social networks. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 80:56- 65.
  10. Catanzaro, M., Caldarelli, G., and Pietronero, L. (2004). Social network growth with assortative mixing. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 338(1):119-124.
  11. Ciotti, V., Bianconi, G., Capocci, A., Colaiori, F., and Panzarasa, P. (2015). Degree correlations in signed social networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, pages 25-39.
  12. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., and Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of facebook friends: social capital and college students use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4):1143- 1168.
  13. Gjoka, M., Kurant, M., Butts, C., and Markopoulou, A. (2010). Walking in Facebook: A case study of unbiased sampling of OSNs. In Proc. of the International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM'10), pages 1-9, San Diego, CA, USA. IEEE.
  14. Goh, K., Oh, E., Kahng, B., and Kim, D. (2003). Betweenness centrality correlation in social networks. Physical Review E, 67(1):017101.
  15. Hargittai, E. and Litt, E. (2011). The tweet smell of celebrity success: Explaining variation in twitter adoption among a diverse group of young adults. New Media & Society, 13(5):824-842.
  16. Holme, P. and Zhao, J. (2007). Exploring the assortativityclustering space of a network's degree sequence. Physical Review E, 75(4):046111.
  17. Hu, H. B. and Wang, X. F. (2009). Evolution of a large online social network. Physics Letters A, 373(12):1105- 1110.
  18. Johnson, S., Torres, J., Marro, J., and Munoz, M. (2010). Entropic origin of disassortativity in complex networks. Physical review letters, 104(10):108702.
  19. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., and Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proc. of the International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW'10), pages 591-600, Raleigh, NC, USA. ACM.
  20. Lax, G., Buccafurri, F., Nicolazzo, S., Nocera, A., and Fotia, L. (2016). A new approach for electronic signature. In Proc. of the International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy (ICISSP 16)), Rome, Italy.
  21. Lazarsfeld, P. and Merton, R. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. Freedom and control in modern society, 18(1):18-66.
  22. Leskovec, J. and Mcauley, J. J. (2012). Learning to discover social circles in ego networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 539-547.
  23. Lu, J. and Wang, H. (2014). Variance reduction in large graph sampling. Information Processing & Management, 50(3):476-491.
  24. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., and Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology, 27:415-444.
  25. Newman, M. (2002). Assortative mixing in networks. Physical Review Letters, 89(20):208701.
  26. Newman, M. and Park, J. (2003). Why social networks are different from other types of networks. Physical Review E, 68(3):036122.
  27. Panek, E. T., Nardis, Y., and Konrath, S. (2013). Mirror or megaphone?: How relationships between narcissism and social networking site use differ on facebook and twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5):2004- 2012.
  28. Patriquin, A. (2007). Connecting the Social Graph: Member Overlap at OpenSocial and Facebook. Compete. com blog.
  29. Zhang, G.-Q., Cheng, S.-Q., and Zhang, G.-Q. (2012). A universal assortativity measure for network analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.6456.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Buccafurri F., Lax G., Nicolazzo S. and Nocera A. (2016). Interest Assortativity in Twitter . In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies - Volume 1: WEBIST, ISBN 978-989-758-186-1, pages 239-246. DOI: 10.5220/0005790602390246

in Bibtex Style

author={Francesco Buccafurri and Gianluca Lax and Serena Nicolazzo and Antonino Nocera},
title={Interest Assortativity in Twitter},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies - Volume 1: WEBIST,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies - Volume 1: WEBIST,
TI - Interest Assortativity in Twitter
SN - 978-989-758-186-1
AU - Buccafurri F.
AU - Lax G.
AU - Nicolazzo S.
AU - Nocera A.
PY - 2016
SP - 239
EP - 246
DO - 10.5220/0005790602390246