Mimétisme: Dis moi qui tu hantes, je te dirai quel poids tu fais (God, protect me from my friends, I’ll take care of my enemies)

Comme ils continuaient à l’interroger, il se releva et leur dit: Que celui de vous qui est sans péché jette le premier la pierre contre elle. Et s’étant de nouveau baissé, il écrivait sur la terre. Quand ils entendirent cela, accusés par leur conscience, ils se retirèrent un à un, depuis les plus âgés jusqu’aux derniers. Jean 8:7-9
Jésus s’appuie sur ce qu’il y a de plus humain dans la Loi, l’obligation faite aux deux premiers accusateurs de jeter les deux premières pierres; il s’agit pour lui de transformer le mimétisme ritualisé pour une violence limitée en un mimétisme inverse. Si ceux qui doivent jeter  « la première pierre » renoncent à leur geste, alors une réaction mimétique inverse s’enclenche, pour le pardon, pour l’amour. Mais il est périlleux de priver la violence mimétique de tout exutoire. Jésus sait bien qu’à dénoncer radicalement le mauvais mimétisme, il s’expose à devenir lui-même la cible des violences collectives. René Girard
Dieu me garde de mes amis, mes ennemis je m’en charge. Voltaire (emprunté à Villars, Gourville ou Saint Jérome?)
Tu as reçu un immense cadeau, George. La chance de voir ce que le monde aurait été sans toi. Étrange, non? La vie de chaque homme touche tant d’autres vies, et quand il n’est pas là, il laisse un vide terrible. Clarence Oddbody
Et si le fiasco tricolore en Afrique du Sud avait vacciné l’ensemble du sport français ? Dans la foulée des athlètes qui brillent sur les pistes de Barcelone, l’équipe de France des moins de 19 ans a remporté son championnat d’Europe, en venant à bout de l’ogre espagnol (2-1), vendredi à Caen lors d’une finale enlevée. Le Monde
En fait, la force de ce collectif réside dans une atmosphère. Ils forment une bande de copains. Francis Smerecki (sélectionneur de l’équipe de France des moins de 19 ans)
En France, l’athlétisme est morcelé. Il n’y a aucun dénominateur commun entre un Lavillenie, entraîné par son père dès ses 4 ans à la perche, un Tamgho formée en banlieue, le provincial Lemaitre ou nos héros du 3 000 m steeple qui s’entraînent dans les montagnes… (…) Ce cortège de médailles résulte du travail réalisé en amont par les éducateurs. Comme Pierrez Carraz, beaucoup d’entraîneurs sont des travailleurs de l’ombre. Dans les clubs, ils bossent la nuit toute l’année. Ils sont des fabricants de soleil durant les compétitions internationales. De son côté, la Fédération française d’athlétisme n’a qu’un rôle de centralisateur lors des grandes épreuves. Je rendrais pourtant un hommage appuyé au directeur technique national Ghani Yalouz. Il a mis les compétiteurs tricolores dans les meilleures conditions psychologiques avant Barcelone. (…) Cette génération est jeune, insouciante et croit en ses chances. Ils mènent une vie sereine en marge de la compétition. Ils ont des amis, ne portent pas de casque sur les oreilles quand on leur parle. Quand ils reviendront dans leur club après l’Euro, ils raconteront de belles histoires aux gamins licenciés. La richesse de cette génération est de ne pas tenir compte de l’échelle sociale ou de la couleur de peau. Jean-Claude Perrin
L’homme est un animal social qui diffère des autres animaux en ce qu’il est plus apte à l’imitation, Aristote le disait déjà (Poétique 4). Aujourd’hui on peut tracer les sources cérébrales de cette spécificité humaine. La découverte des neurones miroirs permet de mettre le doigt sur ce qui connecte les cerveaux des hommes. En outre cette découverte a encore confirmé l’importance neurologique de l’imitation chez l’être humain. Les neurones miroirs sont des neurones qui s’activent, non seulement lorsqu’un individu exécute lui-même une action, mais aussi lorsqu’il regarde un congénère exécuter la même action. On peut dire en quelque sorte que les neurones dans le cerveau de celui/celle qui observe imitent les neurones de la personne observée; de là le qualitatif ‘miroir’ (mirror neurons). Simon De Keukelaere
Il nous arriverait, si nous savions mieux analyser nos amours, de voir que souvent les femmes ne nous plaisent qu’à cause du contrepoids d’hommes à qui nous avons à les disputer (…) ce contrepoids supprimé, le charme de la femme tombe. On en a un exemple dans l’homme qui, sentant s’affaiblir son goùt pour la femme qu’il aime, applique spontanément les règles qu’il a dégagées, et pour être sûr qu’il ne cesse pas d’aimer la femme, la met dans un milieu dangereux où il faut la protéger chaque jour. Proust (La Prisonnière)
Quand les riches s’habituent à leur richesse, la simple consommation ostentatoire perd de son attrait et les nouveaux riches se métamorphosent en anciens riches. Ils considèrent ce changement comme le summum du raffinement culturel et font de leur mieux pour le rendre aussi visible que la consommation qu’ils pratiquaient auparavant. C’est à ce moment-là qu’ils inventent la non-consommation ostentatoire, qui paraît, en surface, rompre avec l’attitude qu’elle supplante mais qui n’est, au fond, qu’une surenchère mimétique du même processus. (…) Plus nous sommes riches en fait, moins nous pouvons nous permettre de nous montrer grossièrement matérialistes car nous entrons dans une hiérarchie de jeux compétitifs qui deviennent toujours plus subtils à mesure que l’escalade progresse. A la fin, ce processus peut aboutir à un rejet total de la compétition, ce qui peut être, même si ce n’est pas toujours le cas, la plus intense des compétitions. René Girard
Si nos ancêtres pouvaient voir les cadavres gesticulants qui ornent les pages de nos revues de mode, ils les interprèteraient vraisemblablement comme un memento mori, un rappel de la mort équivalent, peut-être, aux danses macabres sur les murs de certaines églises médiévales. Si nous leur expliquions que ces squelettes désarticulés symbolisent à nos yeux le plaisir, le bonheur, le luxe, le succès, ils se lanceraient probablement dans une fuite panique, nous imaginant possédés par un diable particulièrement malfaisant. René Girard
Nombre de recherches sur l’obésité, qui soulignent les styles de vie sédentaires, la biologie humaine ou la nourriture rapide, passent à côté de l’essentiel. L’augmentation de l’obésité doit être considérée comme un phénomène sociologique et non pas physiologique. Les gens sont influencés par des comparaisons relatives, et les normes ont changé et continuent à changer. Professeur Andrew Oswald (université de Warwick)
Le tourisme est un phénomène extraordinaire parce que d’une certaine façon il abolit les frontières, ce qu’on cherche dans le tourisme c’est une altérité qui ne nous ressemblerait pas et cette altérité là n’existe plus que dans les agences, dans les affiches des agences touristiques. En réalité les hommes retrouvent partout la même chose exactement et ils ne voyagent que pour capitaliser les kilomètres et montrer à leurs rivaux qu’ils ont plus voyagé qu’eux mais en même temps, si vous voulez, les résultats sont nuls. René Girard
Obesity can spread from person to person, much like a virus, researchers are reporting today. When a person gains weight, close friends tend to gain weight, too. Their study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved a detailed analysis of a large social network of 12,067 people who had been closely followed for 32 years, from 1971 until 2003. The investigators knew who was friends with whom, as well as who was a spouse or sibling or neighbor, and they knew how much each person weighed at various times over three decades. That let them examine what happened over the years as some individuals became obese. Did their friends also become obese? Did family members or neighbors? The answer, the researchers report, was that people were most likely to become obese when a friend became obese. That increased a person’s chances of becoming obese by 57 percent. There was no effect when a neighbor gained or lost weight, however, and family members had less influence than friends. Proximity did not seem to matter: the influence of the friend remained even if the friend was hundreds of miles away. And the greatest influence of all was between mutual close friends. There, if one became obese, the odds of the other becoming obese were nearly tripled. The same effect seemed to occur for weight loss, the investigators say. But since most people were gaining, not losing, over the 32 years of the study, the result was an obesity epidemic. Dr. Nicholas Christakis, a physician and professor of medical sociology at Harvard Medical School and a principal investigator in the new study, says one explanation is that friends affect each others’ perception of fatness. When a close friend becomes obese, obesity may not look so bad. “You change your idea of what is an acceptable body type by looking at the people around you,” Dr. Christakis said. The investigators say their findings can help explain why Americans have become fatter in recent years — each person who became obese was likely to drag some friends with them. Their analysis was unique, Dr. Christakis said, because it moved beyond a simple analysis of one person and his or her social contacts, and instead examined an entire social network at once, looking at how a person’s friend’s friend’s friends, or spouse’s sibling’s friends, could have an influence on a person’s weight. The effects, Dr. Christakis said, “highlight the importance of a spreading process, a kind of social contagion, that spreads through the network.” Of course, the investigators say, social networks are not the only factors that affect body weight. There is a strong genetic component at work as well. Science has shown that individuals have genetically determined ranges of weights, spanning perhaps 30 or so pounds for each person. But that leaves a large role for the environment in determining whether a person’s weight is near the top of his or her range or near the bottom. As people have gotten fatter, it appears that many are edging toward the top of their ranges. The question has been why. If the new research is correct, it may mean that something in the environment seeded what many call an obesity epidemic, leading a few people to gain weight. Then social networks let the obesity spread rapidly. It also may mean that the way to avoid becoming fat is to avoid having fat friends. That is not the message they meant to convey, say the study investigators, Dr. Christakis and his colleague, James Fowler, an associate professor of political science at the University of California in San Diego. You don’t want to lose a friend who becomes obese, Dr. Christakis said. Friends are good for your overall health, he explains. So why not make friends with a thin person, he suggests, and let the thin person’s behavior influence you and your obese friend? NYT
Two years ago, a pair of social scientists named Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler used the information collected over the years about Joseph and Eileen and several thousand of their neighbors to make an entirely different kind of discovery. By analyzing the Framingham data, Christakis and Fowler say, they have for the first time found some solid basis for a potentially powerful theory in epidemiology: that good behaviors — like quitting smoking or staying slender or being happy — pass from friend to friend almost as if they were contagious viruses. The Framingham participants, the data suggested, influenced one another’s health just by socializing. And the same was true of bad behaviors — clusters of friends appeared to “infect” each other with obesity, unhappiness and smoking. Staying healthy isn’t just a matter of your genes and your diet, it seems. Good health is also a product, in part, of your sheer proximity to other healthy people. By keeping in close, regular contact with other healthy friends for decades, Eileen and Joseph had quite possibly kept themselves alive and thriving. And by doing precisely the opposite, the lone obese man hadn’t. For decades, sociologists and philosophers have suspected that behaviors can be “contagious.” In the 1930s, the Austrian sociologist Jacob Moreno began to draw sociograms, little maps of who knew whom in friendship or workplace circles, and he discovered that the shape of social connection varied widely from person to person. Some were sociometric “stars,” picked by many others as a friend, while others were “isolates,” virtually friendless. In the 1940s and 1950s, social scientists began to analyze how the shape of a social network could affect people’s behavior; others examined the way information, gossip and opinion flowed through that network. One pioneer was Paul Lazarsfeld, a sociologist at Columbia University, who analyzed how a commercial product became popular; he argued it was a two-step process, in which highly connected people first absorbed the mass-media ads for a product and then mentioned the product to their many friends. (This concept later bloomed in the 1990s and in this decade with the rage for “buzz marketing” — the attempt to identify thought-leaders who would spread the word about a new product virally.) Lazarsfeld also studied how political opinions flowed through friendship circles; he would ask a group of friends to identify the most influential members of their group, then map out how a political view or support for a candidate spread through and around those individuals. By the 1980s and 1990s, alarmed by the dangers of smoking among young Americans, health care workers began to do the same work on groupings of teenagers to discover exactly how each individual was influenced to pick up the habit. The language of contagion is part of pop culture today, thanks in part to the influence of Malcolm Gladwell’s best-selling book “The Tipping Point.” It’s now common to speak of social changes as epidemics (like the “obesity epidemic”) and to talk about “superconnectors” who are so promiscuously well linked that they exert an outsize influence in society, ushering trends into existence almost single-handedly. Yet the truth is, scientists have never successfully demonstrated that this is really how the world works. None of the case studies directly observed the contagion process in action. They were reverse-engineered later, with sociologists or marketers conducting interviews to try to reconstruct who told whom about what — which meant that people were potentially misrecalling how they were influenced or whom they influenced. And these studies focused on small groups of people, a few dozen or a few hundred at most, which meant they didn’t necessarily indicate much about how a contagious notion spread — if indeed it did — among the broad public. Were superconnectors truly important? How many times did someone need to be exposed to a trend or behavior before they “caught” it? Certainly, scientists knew that a person could influence an immediate peer — but could that influence spread further? Despite our pop-cultural faith in social contagion, no one really knew how it worked. Sociologists began hunting for ongoing, real-life situations in which better data could be found. A 2000 study of dorm mates at Dartmouth College by the economist Bruce Sacerdote found that they appeared to infect each other with good and bad study habits — such that a roommate with a high grade-point average would drag upward the G.P.A. of his lower-scoring roommate, and vice versa. A 2006 Princeton study found that having babies appeared to be contagious: if your sibling has a child, you’re 15 percent more likely to have one yourself in the next two years. These were tantalizing findings, but again, each was too narrow to really indicate whether and how the effect worked in the mass public. What was needed was something more ambitious, some way of mapping out the links between thousands of real-life people for years — decades, even — to see whether, and how, behaviors spread. Nicholas Christakis taking a new look at this question in 2000 after an experience visiting terminally ill patients in the working-class neighborhoods of Chicago. Christakis is a medical doctor and sociologist at Harvard; back then, he was posted at the University of Chicago and, at the age of 38, he had made a name for himself studying the “widowhood effect,” the well-known propensity of spouses to die soon after their partners’ deaths. One of his patients was a terminally ill elderly woman with dementia who lived with her daughter as her main caregiver. The daughter was exhausted from caring for her mother for months; the daughter’s husband, in turn, was becoming ill from coping with his wife’s extreme stress. One night after visiting the dying mother, Christakis arrived back at his office and got a phone call from a friend of the husband, asking for help, explaining that he, too, was feeling overwhelmed by the situation. The mother’s sickness had, in effect, spread outward “across three degrees of separation,” Christakis told me. “This illness affects the daughter, who spreads to the husband, who spreads to the friend, the guy who calls me up,” he added. He began talking to colleagues, wondering how he could further study the phenomenon. In 2002, a common friend introduced him to James Fowler, at the time a Harvard political-science graduate student. Fowler was researching the question of whether the decision to vote in elections could spread virally from one person to another. (…) Christakis knew about the Framingham Heart Study and arranged a visit to the town to learn more. The study seemed promising: he knew it had been underway for more than 50 years and had followed more than 15,000 people, spanning three generations, so in theory, at least, it could offer a crucial moving picture. (…) the social effect appeared to be quite powerful. When a Framingham resident became obese, his or her friends were 57 percent more likely to become obese, too. Even more astonishing to Christakis and Fowler was the fact that the effect didn’t stop there. In fact, it appeared to skip links. A Framingham resident was roughly 20 percent more likely to become obese if the friend of a friend became obese — even if the connecting friend didn’t put on a single pound. Indeed, a person’s risk of obesity went up about 10 percent even if a friend of a friend of a friend gained weight. “People are connected, and so their health is connected,” Christakis and Fowler concluded when they summarized their findings in a July 2007 article in The New England Journal of Medicine, the first time the prestigious journal published a study of how social networks affect health. Or as Christakis and Fowler put it in “Connected,” their coming book on their findings: “You may not know him personally, but your friend’s husband’s co-worker can make you fat. And your sister’s friend’s boyfriend can make you thin.” Obesity was only the beginning. Over the next year, the sociologist and the political scientist continued to analyze the Framingham data, finding more and more examples of contagious behavior. Smoking, they discovered, also appeared to spread socially — in fact, a friend taking up smoking increased your chance of lighting up by 36 percent, and if you had a three-degrees-removed friend who started smoking, you were 11 percent more likely to do the same. Drinking spread socially, as did happiness and even loneliness. And in each case one’s individual influence stretched out three degrees before it faded out. They termed this the “three degrees of influence” rule about human behavior: We are tied not just to those around us, but to others in a web that stretches farther than we know. (…) In the two years since they published their first work, they had become relatively famous and highly controversial. People — and late-night comics — were drawn to a theory that seemed to offer a scientific basis for some exquisitely calculating behavior, like avoiding your friends if they get fat. (Or avoiding your friends merely because some of their friends’ friends gained a couple of pounds.) Newspapers splashed Christakis and Fowler’s obesity findings across front pages, and the study penetrated into corners of the popular culture generally untouched by social-science research. “My favorite was the ‘Cathy’ cartoon,” Fowler told me; in it, Cathy and two friends sit in a restaurant, chatting about the obesity paper; when the waiter comes, each woman points to another and says, “She’ll have a small dry salad and a cup of water.” Fowler told me their work had inspired him to lose five pounds and to listen to upbeat music before he arrives home from work so he will be in a good mood when he greets his family. “I try to get myself in a mental space where I’ll be happy,” he says. “Because I know that I’m not just having an impact on my son, I’m potentially having an impact on my son’s best friend’s mother.” But how, exactly, could obesity or happiness spread through so many links? Between one immediate peer and another, some contagious behaviors — like smoking — seem pretty commonsensical. If lots of people around you are smoking, there’s going to be peer pressure for you to start, whereas if nobody’s smoking, you’ll be more likely to stop. But the simple peer-pressure explanation doesn’t work as well with happiness or obesity: we don’t often urge people around us to eat more or implore them to be happier. (In any case, simply telling someone to be happier or unhappier isn’t likely to work.) Instead, Christakis and Fowler hypothesize that these behaviors spread partly through the subconscious social signals that we pick up from those around us, which serve as cues to what is considered normal behavior. Scientists have been documenting this phenomenon; for example, experiments have shown that if a person is seated next to someone who’s eating more, he will eat more, too, unwittingly calibrating his sense of what constitutes a normal meal. Christakis and Fowler suspect that as friends around us become heavier, we gradually change our mental picture of what “obese” looks like and give ourselves tacit permission to add pounds. With happiness, the two argue that the contagion may be even more deeply subconscious: the spread of good or bad feelings, they say, might be driven partly by “mirror neurons” in the brain that automatically mimic what we see in the faces of those around us — which is why looking at photographs of smiling people can itself often lift your mood. “In some sense we can begin to understand human emotions like happiness the way we might study the stampeding of buffalo,” Christakis said. “You don’t ask an individual buffalo, ‘Why are you running to the left?’ The answer is that the whole herd is running to the left. Similarly, you can see pockets of unhappy and happy people clustered in the network. They don’t even know each other necessarily,” but their moods rise and fall together. The subconscious nature of emotional mirroring might explain one of the more curious findings in their research: If you want to be happy, what’s most important is to have lots of friends. Historically, we have often thought that having a small cluster of tight, long-term friends is crucial to being happy. But Christakis and Fowler found that the happiest people in Framingham were those who had the most connections, even if the relationships weren’t necessarily deep ones. The reason these people were the happiest, the duo theorize, is that happiness doesn’t come only from having deep, heart-to-heart talks. It also comes from having daily exposure to many small moments of contagious happiness. When you frequently see other people smile — at home, in the street, at your local bar — your spirits are repeatedly affected by your mirroring of their emotional state. Of course, the danger of being highly connected to lots of people is that you’re at risk of encountering many people when they are in bad moods. But Christakis and Fowler say their findings show that the gamble of increased sociability pays off, for a surprising reason: Happiness is more contagious than unhappiness. According to their statistical analysis, each additional happy friend boosts your good cheer by 9 percent, while each additional unhappy friend drags you down by only 7 percent. So by this logic, adding more links to your network should — mathematically — add to your store of happiness. “If you’re at the center of a network, you are going to be more susceptible to anything that spreads through it,” Fowler said. “And if happiness is spreading more reliably, then on average you’re going to be catching happy waves more often than you catch sad waves.” The Framingham findings also suggest that different contagious behaviors spread in different ways. For example, co-workers did not seem to transmit happiness to one another, while personal friends did. But co-workers did transmit smoking habits; if a person at a small firm stopped smoking, his or her colleagues had a 34 percent better chance of quitting themselves. The difference is based in the nature of workplace relationships, Fowler contends. Smokers at work tend to cluster together outside the building; if one of them stops smoking, it reduces the conviviality of the experience. (If you’re the last smoker outside on a freezing afternoon, your behavior can seem completely ridiculous even to yourself.) But when it comes to happiness, Fowler said, “people are both cooperative and competitive at work. So when one person gets a raise, it might make him happy, but it’ll make other people jealous.” Obesity had its own quirk: Spouses didn’t appear to have as big an effect on each other as friends. If a male Framingham subject had a male friend who became fat, his risk doubled, but if his wife became obese, his risk was increased by only 37 percent. This, Christakis and Fowler say, is because when it comes to body image, we compare ourselves primarily to people of the same sex (and in the Framingham study, all spouses were of the opposite sex). In fact, different-sexed friends didn’t transmit any obesity to one another at all. If a man became fat, his female friends were completely unaffected, and vice versa. Similarly, siblings of the same sex had a bigger impact on one another’s weight than siblings of the opposite sex. When it came to drinking, Christakis and Fowler found a different kind of gender effect. Framingham women were considerably more influential than Framingham men. A woman who began drinking heavily increased the heavy-drinking risk of those around her, whereas heavy-drinking men had less effect on other people. Why? In the age of frat-party binge drinking, you might imagine that hard-partying men are the most risky people to be around. But Fowler says he suspects women are more influential precisely because they tend to drink less. When a woman starts drinking heavily, he says, it sends a strong signal to those around her that it’s O.K. to start boozing too. Christakis and Fowler’s strangest finding is the idea that a behavior can skip links — spreading to a friend of a friend without affecting the person who connects them. If the people in the middle of a chain are somehow passing along a social contagion, it doesn’t make sense, on the face of it, that they wouldn’t be affected, too. The two researchers say they don’t know for sure how the link-jumping works. But they theorize that people may be able to pass along a social signal without themselves acting on it. If your friends at work become obese, even if you don’t gain weight yourself, you might become more accepting of obesity as a normal state — and unconsciously transmit that signal to your family members, who would then feel a sort of permission to gain weight themselves, knowing they wouldn’t face any sort of censure from you. Christakis and Fowler postulate that our ability to affect people three degrees away from us may have evolutionary roots — and so may the very shape of human social networks. Tribal groups that were tightly connected were likely more able to pass along positive behaviors than those that weren’t. Christakis and Fowler say social contagion could even help explain the existence of altruism: if we can pass on altruism to distant points in a network, it would help explain why altruistic people aren’t simply constantly taken advantage of by other members of their community. Last year, to test this theory, they conducted a laboratory experiment in which participants played a “cooperation game.” Each participant was asked to share a sum of money with a small group and could choose to be either generous or selfish. Christakis and Fowler found that if someone was on the receiving end of a generous exchange, that person would become more generous to the next set of partners — until the entire larger group was infected, as it were, with altruistic behavior, which meant the altruist would benefit indirectly. (..) But (…) There are at least two other possible explanations. One is “homophily,” the tendency of people to gravitate toward others who are like them. People who are gaining weight might well prefer to hang out with others who are also gaining weight, just as people who are happy might seek out others who are happy. The other possible explanation is that the shared environment — and not social contagion — might be causing the people of Framingham to change in groups. If a McDonald’s opens up in a Framingham neighborhood, it could cause a cluster of people living nearby to gain weight or become slightly happier (or sadder, depending on what they think about McDonald’s). The cluster of people would appear as though they are sharing a contagious form of behavior, but it would be an illusion. (…) He and Fowler also acknowledged that it is impossible to completely remove the problems of homophily and environmental effects. (…) And Christakis and Fowler point to two other findings to bolster their case for social contagion over environmental effects. One is that in the Framingham study, obesity seemed to be able to jump from friend to friend even over great distances. When people moved away, their weight gain still appeared to influence friends back in Massachusetts. In such cases, the local environment couldn’t be making both gain weight, Christakis and Fowler say. Their other finding is more intriguing and arguably more significant: They discovered that behaviors appear to spread differently depending on the type of friendship that exists between two people. In the Framingham study, people were asked to name a close friend. But the friendships weren’t always symmetrical. Though Steven might designate Peter as his friend, Peter might not think of Steven the same way; he might never designate Steven as a friend. Christakis and Fowler found that this “directionality” mattered greatly. According to their data, if Steven becomes obese, it has no effect on Peter at all, because he doesn’t think of Steven as a close friend. In contrast, if Peter gains weight, then Steven’s risk of obesity rises by almost 100 percent. And if the two men regard each other as mutual friends, the effect is huge — either one gaining weight almost triples the other’s risk. In Framingham, Christakis and Fowler found this directionality effect even among people who lived and worked very close to each other. And that, they argue, means it can’t be the environment that is making people in Framingham fatter, since the environment ought to affect each of these friends equally. If you look at a chart showing the change in smoking rates in the United States since the 1970s, it is a picture of early public-health success that soon tails off. In 1970, the smoking rate for adults was 37 percent. It fell to 33 percent by 1980 and then fell even more precipitously between 1980 and 1990. But after that, the rate at which people quit smoking began to slow. Between 2004 and 2005, in fact, the smoking rate stayed steady; on balance, nobody quit smoking those years. Antismoking forces successfully pushed the number of smokers down to one in five people, but they now seem stuck. Smoking-cessation experts have debated why it has become so hard to get the final holdouts to quit. Perhaps, some said, it was because the average cost of a pack of cigarettes remains largely unchanged nationally since 2002. But there might be another, hidden reason: the shape of a smoker’s social ties. When Christakis and Fowler mapped out the way Framingham people quit smoking during roughly the same period — 1971 to 2003 — they found that the decline was not evenly distributed across the town. Instead, clusters of friends all quit smoking at the same time, in a group. It was like a ballroom emptying out one table at a time. But this meant that by 2003, the remaining smokers were also not evenly distributed: instead, they existed in isolated, tightly knit clusters of like-minded nicotine fiends. Worse, those clusters had migrated to the edges of the social network, where they were less interlinked with the mass of Framingham participants. In their everyday social lives, Christakis and Fowler say, the town’s remaining smokers are thus mostly surrounded by people who still smoke, and they rarely have strong connections with nonsmokers. Nonsmoking may be contagious, but the smokers don’t appear to be close to anyone from whom they could catch the behavior. The federal government has officially set a goal of reducing the number of smokers in the country to 12 percent of the population by 2010. But the very shape of our social networks is working against that goal, Fowler says, and this poses a potential public-health challenge. Meanwhile, public-health strategists who want to counteract obesity face the opposite problem. Since the country is gradually becoming more and more obese, when individual people do lose weight, they are more likely to be surrounded by people who are still heavy. If it’s true that obesity can affect people even three links away, that may be one reason that people have such trouble keeping weight off. Even if they form a weight-loss group to lose weight with their close friends, they will still be influenced by obese people two or three links away — people they barely know. “We know that people are wildly successful in losing weight and wildly unsuccessful in keeping it off,” Hill, the obesity researcher, says; he believes Framingham offers an important explanation of why this is. In essence, Christakis and Fowler’s work suggests a new way to think about public health. If they’re right, public-health initiatives that merely address the affected individuals are doomed to failure. To really grapple with bad behaviors that spread, you have to simultaneously focus on individuals who are so distant they don’t even realize they’re affecting one another. Hill says this is possible with obesity. Last year, he collaborated with David Bahr, a physicist at Regis University in Denver, to construct a computer model of society that replicates the way obesity spreads. They created a simulation of hundreds of thousands of individuals, each programmed to influence one another in precisely the same way that Christakis and Fowler documented in Framingham. To test whether their model accurately mimicked reality, they seeded it with a few obese people and set it running. The virtual society slowly became obese in the same pattern and at the same rate as Framingham. If they could accurately copy the way Framingham became obese, they figured, they could then use the model to test different ways that the spread might be halted. They began trying different experiments — like focusing on specific individuals and seeing whether or not they could use them to create a counterepidemic of skinniness. One solution jumped out at them. In theory, the best way to fight obesity, the model predicted, isn’t to urge people to diet with a cluster of close friends. It is to encourage them to skip a link and to diet with friends of friends. That way, in your immediate social network, everyone would be surrounded on at least one side by people who are actively losing weight, and this would in turn influence those other links to begin losing weight themselves. When Hill and Bahr ran the simulation with this sort of staggered dieting, it worked: the virtual society began slimming down, and the obesity epidemic reversed itself. “It’s like you have bridging dams to try and stop the flow,” Bahr told me. (Bahr also found that the obesity epidemic could be reversed quickly, with only 1 percent of the entire population losing weight, so long as the dieters were placed in precisely the right spots. “You don’t need a lot of people, but you do need the right ones,” he said.) In reality, of course, this sort of intervention would be quite difficult to pull off. You would have to figure out some way to persuade friends of friends to form dieting groups together. But other scientists have used Christakis and Fowler’s work to inspire more potentially practical public-health projects, some of which are now being implemented. Nathan Cobb, a smoking-cessation expert and researcher at the Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, is designing an application that Facebook users can install on their pages when they’re trying to quit smoking. The application will publicly display how long they’ve gone without cigarettes, whether they are using a nicotine patch and how much money they have saved by not smoking. The idea, Cobb says, is to take your invisible, internal battle to quit smoking and make it visible so that it can influence your friends (and friends of friends) who are still puffing away. It’s tempting to think, confronted by Christakis and Fowler’s work, that the best way to improve your life is to simply cut your ties to people with bad behavior. And obviously this is possible; people change their friends often, sometimes abruptly. But reshaping your social network may be more challenging than altering your behavior. There’s also compelling evidence in their research that we do not have as much control as we might think we do over the way we’re linked to other people: our location in a social network, say, or how many of our friends know each other. These patterns in our life are relatively stable, and they might, weirdly, be partly innate. Christakis and Fowler first noticed this effect when they examined their happiness data. They discovered that people who were deeply enmeshed in friendship circles were usually much happier than “isolates,” those with few ties. But if an isolate did manage to find happiness, she did not suddenly develop more ties and migrate to a position where she was more tightly connected to others. The reverse was also true: if a well-connected person became unhappy, he didn’t lose his ties and become an isolate. Your level of connectedness appears to be more persistent than even your overall temperament. “If you picked up someone who’s well connected and dropped them into another network, they’d migrate toward the center,” Christakis said. Your place in the network affects your happiness, in other words, but your happiness doesn’t affect your place in the network. Christakis and Fowler began to wonder if a person’s connectedness is to some degree fated from birth — a product, at least in part, of DNA. To test the idea, they conducted a study of twins. Using the Add Health school data, they located more than 500 sets of twins and analyzed where they were located in their friendship clusters. Employing statistical techniques traditionally used to parse out how much of twins’ lifestyles are attributable to their genes as opposed to their environment, they found that almost half — 46 percent — of the difference between two twins’ levels of connectedness could be explained by DNA. (…) Social-network science ultimately offers a new perspective on an age-old question: to what extent are we autonomous individuals? “If someone does a good thing merely because they’re copying others, or they do something bad merely because they’re copying others, what credit do they deserve, or what blame do they deserve?” Christakis asks. “If I quit smoking because everyone around me quits smoking, what credit do I get” for demonstrating self-control? If you’re one of the people who are partly driven by his DNA to hang out on the periphery of society, well, that’s also where the smokers are, which means you are also more likely to pick up their habit. To look at society as a social network — instead of a collection of individuals — can lead to some thorny conclusions. In a column published last fall in The British Medical Journal, Christakis wrote that a strictly utilitarian point of view would suggest we should give better medical care to well-connected individuals, because they’re the ones more likely to pass on the benefits contagiously to others. “This conclusion,” Christakis wrote, “makes me uneasy.” Yet there is also, the two scientists argue, something empowering about the idea that we are so entwined. “Even as we are being influenced by others, we can influence others,” Christakis told me when we first met. “And therefore the importance of taking actions that are beneficial to others is heightened. So this network thing can cut both ways, subverting our ability to have free will, but increasing, if you will, the importance of us having free will.” As Fowler pointed out, if you want to improve the world with your good behavior, math is on your side. For most of us, within three degrees we are connected to more than 1,000 people — all of whom we can theoretically help make healthier, fitter and happier just by our contagious example. “If someone tells you that you can influence 1,000 people,” Fowler said, “it changes your way of seeing the world.” NYT
Prenez l’obésité: sa cause principale n’est pas génétique, puisque les gènes des Américains, population sur laquelle nous travaillons, n’ont pas vraiment changé depuis les années 50. On se doute bien, par ailleurs, que de multiples facteurs interviennent dans la prise de poids, comme l’invention du fast-food. Mais nos travaux ont montré un phénomène très surprenant : quand vos amis, les amis de vos amis, ou même les amis des amis de vos amis, prennent du poids, cela a un effet sur votre tour de taille ! Si un ami de votre ami grossit, en effet, il transforme la « norme » acceptée par votre ami en terme de poids. Et, par ricochet, il modifie la vôtre. Peut-être parce que votre ami, habitué au changement qui s’est produit chez son autre camarade, aura pris du poids lui-même et sera plus tolérant avec vous lorsque vous commencerez à grossir. Mais il peut aussi vous faire grossir sans prendre de poids ! Car le plus intéressant dans cette transmission de « signaux », c’est que la contagion par les réseaux sociaux fonctionne comme la contagion par les germes. Un ami « immune » n’est pas forcément un ami « non porteur », il peut faire passer le signal sans en présenter les symptômes. Et le même genre de phénomènes se produit dans la décision d’arrêter de fumer, le suicide, la désinformation ou le risque de divorcer : plus il y a de couples divorcés dans votre entourage, ou parmi les amis de votre entourage, plus les risques que vous divorciez augmentent. (…) Où préférez-vous être si un germe mortel se répand dans le réseau ? Au centre, hyperconnecté, ou bien en bordure, isolé ? Sur les bords, évidemment, puisque c’est là que vous aurez le moins de chances d’être infecté. Mais si vous cherchez un emploi, où vaut-il mieux être? Au centre, là où passent toutes les informations. Dans l’absolu, il n’y a donc pas un endroit préférable à un autre. La question se pose cependant pour les politiques de santé et soulève de sérieux problèmes éthiques. Lors d’une épidémie, le principe d’efficacité voudrait en effet qu’on distribue d’abord des vaccins au centre, où les gens, plus connectés qu’ailleurs, ont le plus de chances de recevoir et de transmettre le virus. Mais ce choix peut être moralement contestable. La sociologie des réseaux s’intéresse aussi à la marginalité, à la solitude ou à l’alcoolisme. De nombreuses études montrent que la société fonctionne comme un sweatshirt qui s’effilocherait par la manche : si vous ne prenez pas soin de ce fil isolé, votre vêtement finira par se défaire entièrement. En revanche, si vous soignez les bords – c’est-à-dire, dans une société, les marginaux et les exclus – , cela profite à l’ensemble du groupe : vous prévenez ainsi la désintégration du réseau. Nicholas Christakis
Le risque pour une personne de devenir obèse augmente de 57 % si il ou elle a un(e) ami(e) devenu(e) obèse. Si ce proche est du même sexe, la probabilité grimpe à 71 % et pour les hommes à 100 %. Las, s’il s’agit de son meilleur ami, le risque s’envole à 171 % ! Frères et soeurs représentent, eux, un risque accru de 40 % et les conjoint(e)s de 37 %.
Le fait que le risque d’obésité perdure au-delà de l’éloignement géographique des amis leur fait dire que l’influence « relève moins d’un processus d’imitation que d’un changement de norme sociale en ce qui concerne l’acceptabilité de l’obésité ». En d’autres termes, parce que votre ami devient obèse, ce surpoids devient plus tolérable en général et pour vous en particulier. Le Monde

Lapidations, fureurs sacrées, chasses aux sorcières, tontes, syndrome des vestiaires, vols de pénis, anorexie, homosexualité, bâtiments malades, hystéries collectives, théories du complot, « fièvre acheteuse », ruées ou fuites résidentielles, bulles ou krachs boursiers, tourisme, religions et contre-religions, nationalismes et contre-nationalismes

Alors que l’incroyable et inespérée embellie actuelle du sport français après la débacle sud-africaine d’il y a un mois et demi, notamment dans un sport aussi individuel que l’athlétisme, démontre l’importance de la dynamique de groupe tant pour le succès que pour l’échec d’une équipe …

Retour, avec les travaux du sociologue et médecin de Harvard Nicholas Christianikis, sur la propagation des états émotionnels.

Qui, à partir de l’étude de l’effet de veuvage (la surmortalité des veufs pouvant monter à 80% durant la 1ère année ayant suivi le décès du conjoint), a montré avec l’anthropologue de San Diego Fowler, la dimension hautement collective de toutes sortes d’émotions ou comportements.

A savoir un fonctionnement et une transmission de type épidémique où toutes sortes d’émotions ou comportements (obésité, anorexie, tabagisme, dépression, suicides, santé, désinformation, divorce, bonheur) se propagent, par vagues de proche en proche comme un véritable virus à travers de vastes réseaux sociaux d’amis, de famille, de collègues, et autres.

Et ce, en bien ou en mal, au-delà de l’homophilie (la tendance des individus à se rapprocher d’individus similaires) et même de l’éloignement géographique, comme une sorte d’imposition de nouvelles normes, y compris par des porteurs sains n’en présentant pas eux-mêmes les symptômes.

Confirmant ainsi indirectement les hypothèses de René Girard sur le mimétisme et les recherches récentes sur les neurones miroir, notamment la nature extrêmement paradoxale de l’imitation humaine: source d’intelligence (via l’apprentissage, le langage et la transmission culturelle) et d’empathie, mais aussi de rivalité et de destruction …

« Les réseaux sociaux influencent votre poids »

L’homme tisse des réseaux depuis la préhistoire. Ceux-ci sont « contagieux » : ils transmettent les comportements, positifs comme négatifs.

Propos recueillis par Olivier Pascal-Moussellard

Télérama

03.09.10

Connectés. Les hommes sont connectés les uns aux autres – et pas seulement dans l’univers virtuel !

Professeur de médecine et sociologue à Harvard, Nicholas Christakis décortique les règles mathématiques, sociales et biologiques qui animent les réseaux sociaux (réels) dans lesquels nous nous mouvons au quotidien. Et montre qu’ils nous influencent plus qu’on ne le croit, notamment en matière de santé

L’homme est un animal (de réseau) social

Quand ils entendent « réseaux sociaux », la plupart des gens pensent à Internet, en particulier à Facebook. Mais l’homme a tissé des réseaux sociaux depuis la préhistoire. Sans que nous en soyons toujours conscients, nous faisons comme les fourmis, nous nous assemblons dans une entité qui nous dépasse, un « superorganisme » qui a des propriétés particulières, et ces interconnections obéissent à des règles biologiques, sociales et mathématiques complexes. Un réseau n’est pas seulement un groupe, une collection d’individus : ce sont des gens qui entretiennent des liens spécifiques. Ainsi, cent cinquante personnes qui vont et viennent à la rivière dans le désordre pour éteindre un incendie n’ont pas le même « statut » social qu’une chaîne qui s’organise pour faire passer le baquet : soudain, vous avez un homme à votre gauche, un autre à votre droite, et une connexion particulière entre eux.

Dans un réseau social, les comportements « négatifs » se répandent aussi facilement que les positifs. Mais on se rend vite compte que les bénéfices de la vie « connectée» l’emportent sur les coûts. En effet, si vous vous coupez de la société, vous pourrez peut-être en tirer des avantages à court terme, mais vous allez le payer cher au final. Si je vous rends malheureux ou si je vous donne tout le temps des informations incorrectes, vous coupez le lien avec moi, n’est-ce pas ? Alors le réseau se désintègre. Le partage de choses désirables est donc nécessaire pour le consolider.

En réseau, il y a amis et « amis »

Etre un animal de réseaux ne fait pas de nous des individus capables d’une infinité d’amitiés,comme voudraient nous le faire croire les réseaux sociaux virtuels du type Facebook. Demandez à votre grand-mère combien d’amis elle avait dans sa jeunesse : un ou deux meilleurs amis sans doute et quatre ou cinq amis proches. Posez la question à une jeune fille d’aujourd’hui : ses centaines d’« amis » sur Facebook n’empêchent pas qu’elle n’a, comme votre grand-mère, qu’un ou deux meilleurs amis! Tout simplement parce que notre potentiel d’amitiés ne dépend pas des capacités de notre ordinateur – mais de celles de notre cerveau – à interagir. Et la règle vaut pour d’autres réseaux. Combien d’hommes, par exemple, comptaient les fameuses centuries de l’armée romaine ? Une centaine. Depuis la chute de l’Empire romain, on a inventé le radar, le talkie-walkie et Internet. N’empêche que les brigades de l’armée américaine ne dénombrent pas beaucoup plus de soldats. Car la capacité des hommes à travailler ensemble ne dépend pas (seulement) de la technologie, mais de la capacité de notre cerveau à suivre et à reconnaître individuellement ceux avec qui on coopère.

Physiologie du « superorganisme »

Vous pensiez que les variations de votre poids ou votre décision d’arrêter la cigarette étaient le fruit de choix personnels ? Ils le sont… en partie seulement. Car les réseaux sociaux sont « contagieux », ils influencent le comportement des individus, là où on ne les attend pas. Prenez l’obésité: sa cause principale n’est pas génétique, puisque les gènes des Américains, population sur laquelle nous travaillons, n’ont pas vraiment changé depuis les années 50. On se doute bien, par ailleurs, que de multiples facteurs interviennent dans la prise de poids, comme l’invention du fast-food. Mais nos travaux ont montré un phénomène très surprenant : quand vos amis, les amis de vos amis, ou même les amis des amis de vos amis, prennent du poids, cela a un effet sur votre tour de taille ! Si un ami de votre ami grossit, en effet, il transforme la « norme » acceptée par votre ami en terme de poids. Et, par ricochet, il modifie la vôtre. Peut-être parce que votre ami, habitué au changement qui s’est produit chez son autre camarade, aura pris du poids lui-même et sera plus tolérant avec vous lorsque vous commencerez à grossir. Mais il peut aussi vous faire grossir sans prendre de poids ! Car le plus intéressant dans cette transmission de « signaux », c’est que la contagion par les réseaux sociaux fonctionne comme la contagion par les germes. Un ami « immune » n’est pas forcément un ami « non porteur », il peut faire passer le signal sans en présenter les symptômes. Et le même genre de phénomènes se produit dans la décision d’arrêter de fumer, le suicide, la désinformation ou le risque de divorcer : plus il y a de couples divorcés dans votre entourage, ou parmi les amis de votre entourage, plus les risques que vous divorciez augmentent.

Dans le réseau, pas de place au chaud

Où préférez-vous être si un germe mortel se répand dans le réseau ? Au centre, hyperconnecté, ou bien en bordure, isolé ? Sur les bords, évidemment, puisque c’est là que vous aurez le moins de chances d’être infecté. Mais si vous cherchez un emploi, où vaut-il mieux être? Au centre, là où passent toutes les informations. Dans l’absolu, il n’y a donc pas un endroit préférable à un autre. La question se pose cependant pour les politiques de santé et soulève de sérieux problèmes éthiques. Lors d’une épidémie, le principe d’efficacité voudrait en effet qu’on distribue d’abord des vaccins au centre, où les gens, plus connectés qu’ailleurs, ont le plus de chances de recevoir et de transmettre le virus. Mais ce choix peut être moralement contestable. La sociologie des réseaux s’intéresse aussi à la marginalité, à la solitude ou à l’alcoolisme. De nombreuses études montrent que la société fonctionne comme un sweatshirt qui s’effilocherait par la manche : si vous ne prenez pas soin de ce fil isolé, votre vêtement finira par se défaire entièrement. En revanche, si vous soignez les bords – c’est-à-dire, dans une société, les marginaux et les exclus – , cela profite à l’ensemble du groupe : vous prévenez ainsi la désintégration du réseau.

Tout change, rien ne change

Les technologies de communication vont continuer à croître, comme elles n’ont cessé de le faire depuis deux cents ans. Mais la façon dont nous aimons aujourd’hui est-elle très différente de la façon d’aimer il y a deux siècles ? Le désir profond de l’homme de se connecter à d’autres ne varie pas beaucoup : la connexion directe – par oreillette, petits écrans au coin de l’oeil ou par le biais d’un logiciel planté dans la tête – finira bien par arriver, mais cela ne devrait pas modifier fondamentalement l’interaction humaine. Communiquer avec des centaines de personnes sera sans doute possible. Mais ne nous empêchera pas d’inviter six ou sept amis seulement – pas six cents ou sept cents! – à dîner le vendredi soir à la maison….

Voir également:

Obésité : vos meilleurs amis vous influencent

Martine Laronche

Le Monde

01.08.07

Faut-il se méfier de l’influence d’un ou d’une ami(e) obèse sur sa ligne ? Une étude américaine publiée, jeudi 26 juillet, dans la très sérieuse revue médicale New England Journal of Medecine, semble accréditer cette idée. Ainsi, le risque pour une personne de devenir obèse augmente de 57 % si il ou elle a un(e) ami(e) devenu(e) obèse. Si ce proche est du même sexe, la probabilité grimpe à 71 % et pour les hommes à 100 %. Las, s’il s’agit de son meilleur ami, le risque s’envole à 171 % ! Frères et soeurs représentent, eux, un risque accru de 40 % et les conjoint(e)s de 37 %. Quant aux voisins, ils ne risquent rien. Pour établir ce constat, Nicholas Christakis de l’université Harvard et James Fowler de l’université de Californie, à San Diego, ont étudié, sur une période de 32 ans, le poids de 12 067 personnes, à partir des données collectées dans le cadre d’une étude sur les risques cardiaques lancée en 1948 et qui se poursuit encore.

Comment explique-t-on ce phénomène ? Le fait que le risque d’obésité perdure au-delà de l’éloignement géographique des amis leur fait dire que l’influence « relève moins d’un processus d’imitation que d’un changement de norme sociale en ce qui concerne l’acceptabilité de l’obésité ». En d’autres termes, parce que votre ami devient obèse, ce surpoids devient plus tolérable en général et pour vous en particulier.

Voir aussi:

Le bonheur est contagieux, selon des chercheurs américains

Le Monde.fr avec AFP

05.12.08

Le bonheur des gens dépendrait du bonheur de ceux qui les entourent. C’est la conclusion des recherches menées pendant plus de vingt ans par deux scientifiques américains, dont l’étude est publiée, vendredi 5 décembre, par le British Medical Journal (BJM).

Au-delà du fait, évident, que certaines émotions soient contagieuses d’une personne à l’autre, on en savait peu jusqu’ici sur l’impact, à long terme, de l’entourage d’un individu sur son bonheur, ainsi que sur le nombre et la proximité des personnes « contaminées » par le bonheur d’un tiers. L’objectif du professeur Nicholas Christakis, de la Harvard Medical School, et du professeur James Fowler de l’Université de Californie à San Diego, qui ont mené cette étude auprès de 4 739 personnes de 1983 à 2003, dans une ville du Massachussets, était donc d’évaluer si le bonheur pouvait se répandre, à long terme, d’une personne à l’autre, et dans l’ensemble d’un groupe social.

Leur réponse est que « les variations dans le niveau de bonheur d’un individu peuvent se propager par vagues à travers des groupes sociaux et générer une large structure au sein même d’un réseau, créant ainsi des groupes de gens heureux ou malheureux », la proximité géographique important aussi bien que la proximité sociale. Par exemple, la probabilité qu’une personne soit heureuse augmente de 42 % si un ami qui vit à moins de 800 mètres le devient lui-même. Ce chiffre passe à 25 % si l’ami vit à moins de 1,5 km, et il continue de décliner à mesure que l’éloignement croît. Et le bonheur d’un individu peut « irradier » jusqu’à trois degrés de séparation, c’est-à-dire que l’on peut rendre heureux, l’ami de l’ami d’un ami.

PAS DE CONTAGION AUX COLLÈGUES DE BUREAU

« Les gens qui sont entourés par beaucoup de gens heureux (…) ont plus de chance d’être heureux dans le futur. Les statistiques montrent que ces groupes heureux sont bien le résultat de la contagion du bonheur et non seulement d’une tendance de ces individus à se rapprocher d’individus similaires, » précisent les chercheurs. Les chances de bonheur augmentent de 8 % en cas de cohabitation avec un conjoint heureux, de 14 % si un proche parent heureux vit dans le voisinage, et même de 34 % en cas de voisins joyeux. Ces recherches « sont une raison supplémentaire de concevoir le bonheur, comme la santé, comme un phénomène collectif » expliquent-ils.

Ce phénomène a cependant des limites : ainsi la formule ne s’applique pas au bureau. « Les collègues de travail n’affectent pas le niveau de bonheur, ce qui laisse penser que le contexte social peut limiter la propagation d’états émotionnels », selon l’étude.

Dans son éditorial, le BMJ estime que cette étude « révolutionnaire » pourrait avoir des implications en termes de santé publique. « Si le bonheur se transmet effectivement par le biais des relations sociales, cela pourrait contribuer indirectement à la transmission similaire de la [bonne] santé, ce qui a des implications sérieuses pour l’élaboration des politiques », estime le journal. Dans leur introduction, les chercheurs rappellent que le bonheur est si essentiel à l’existence humaine que l’Organisation mondiale de la santé le désigne de plus en plus comme un composant à part entière de l’état de santé.

Voir encore:

Study Says Obesity Can Be Contagious

Gina Kolata

The New York Times

July 25, 2007

Obesity can spread from person to person, much like a virus, researchers are reporting today. When a person gains weight, close friends tend to gain weight, too.

Their study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved a detailed analysis of a large social network of 12,067 people who had been closely followed for 32 years, from 1971 until 2003. The investigators knew who was friends with whom, as well as who was a spouse or sibling or neighbor, and they knew how much each person weighed at various times over three decades. That let them examine what happened over the years as some individuals became obese. Did their friends also become obese? Did family members or neighbors?

The answer, the researchers report, was that people were most likely to become obese when a friend became obese. That increased a person’s chances of becoming obese by 57 percent.

There was no effect when a neighbor gained or lost weight, however, and family members had less influence than friends.

Proximity did not seem to matter: the influence of the friend remained even if the friend was hundreds of miles away. And the greatest influence of all was between mutual close friends. There, if one became obese, the odds of the other becoming obese were nearly tripled.

The same effect seemed to occur for weight loss, the investigators say. But since most people were gaining, not losing, over the 32 years of the study, the result was an obesity epidemic.

Dr. Nicholas Christakis, a physician and professor of medical sociology at Harvard Medical School and a principal investigator in the new study, says one explanation is that friends affect each others’ perception of fatness. When a close friend becomes obese, obesity may not look so bad.

“You change your idea of what is an acceptable body type by looking at the people around you,” Dr. Christakis said.

The investigators say their findings can help explain why Americans have become fatter in recent years — each person who became obese was likely to drag some friends with them.

Their analysis was unique, Dr. Christakis said, because it moved beyond a simple analysis of one person and his or her social contacts, and instead examined an entire social network at once, looking at how a person’s friend’s friend’s friends, or spouse’s sibling’s friends, could have an influence on a person’s weight. The effects, Dr. Christakis said, “highlight the importance of a spreading process, a kind of social contagion, that spreads through the network.”

Of course, the investigators say, social networks are not the only factors that affect body weight. There is a strong genetic component at work as well.

Science has shown that individuals have genetically determined ranges of weights, spanning perhaps 30 or so pounds for each person. But that leaves a large role for the environment in determining whether a person’s weight is near the top of his or her range or near the bottom. As people have gotten fatter, it appears that many are edging toward the top of their ranges. The question has been why.

If the new research is correct, it may mean that something in the environment seeded what many call an obesity epidemic, leading a few people to gain weight. Then social networks let the obesity spread rapidly.

It also may mean that the way to avoid becoming fat is to avoid having fat friends.

That is not the message they meant to convey, say the study investigators, Dr. Christakis and his colleague, James Fowler, an associate professor of political science at the University of California in San Diego.

You don’t want to lose a friend who becomes obese, Dr. Christakis said. Friends are good for your overall health, he explains. So why not make friends with a thin person, he suggests, and let the thin person’s behavior influence you and your obese friend?

That answer does not satisfy obesity researchers like Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.

“I think there’s a great risk here in blaming obese people even more for things that are caused by a terrible environment,” Dr. Brownell said.

On average, the investigators said, their rough calculations show that a person who became obese gained 17 pounds, and the newly obese person’s friend gained 5. But some gained less or did not gain weight at all, while others gained much more.

Those extra pounds were added onto the natural increases in weight that occur when people get older. What usually happened was that peoples’ weights got high enough to push them over the boundary, a body mass index of 30, that divides overweight and obese. (For example, a six-foot-tall man who went from 220 pounds to 225 would go from being overweight to obese.)

While other researchers were surprised by the findings, Dr. Christakis said the big surprise for him was that he could do the study at all. He got the idea from talk of an obesity epidemic.

“One day I said, ‘Maybe it really is an epidemic. Maybe it spreads from person to person,’ ” Dr. Christakis recalled.

It was only by chance that he discovered a way to find out. He learned that the data he needed were contained in a large federal study of heart disease, the Framingham Heart Study, that had followed the population of Framingham, Mass. for decades, keeping track of nearly every one of its participants.

The study’s records included each participant’s address and the names of family members. In order for the researchers to be sure they did not lose track of their subjects, each was asked to name a close friend who would know where they were at the time of their next exam, in roughly four years. Since much of the town and most of the subjects’ relatives were participating, the data contained all that Dr. Christakis and his colleagues needed to reconstruct the social network and follow it for 32 years.

Their research has taken obesity specialists and social scientists aback. But many say the finding is pathbreaking, and can shed new light on how and why people have gotten so fat so fast.

“It is an extraordinarily subtle and sophisticated way of getting a handle on aspects of the environment that are not normally considered,” said Dr. Rudolph Leibel, an obesity researcher at Columbia University.

Dr. Richard Suzman, who directs the office of behavioral and social research programs at the National Institute on Aging, called it “one of the most exciting studies to come out of medical sociology in decades.” The institute financed the study.

But Dr. Stephen O’Rahilly, an obesity researcher at the University of Cambridge, said the uniqueness of the Framingham data will make it hard to replicate the new findings. No other study that he knows of includes the same kinds of long-term and detailed data on social interactions.

“I don’t want to look like an old curmudgeon, but when you come upon things that inherently look a bit implausible, you raise the bar for standards of proof,” Dr. O’Rahilly says. “Good science is all about replication, but it is hard to see how science will ever replicate this.”

“Boy, is the Framingham study unique,” Dr. O’Rahilly said.

Voir enfin:

Clive Thompson
The New York Times
Sept. 10, 2009

EILEEN BELLOLI KEEPS very good track of her friends. Belloli, who is 74, was born in Framingham, Mass., which is where she met her future husband, Joseph, when they were both toddlers. (“I tripped her and made her cry,” recalls Joseph, a laconic and beanpole-tall 76-year-old.) The Bellolis never left Framingham, a comfortable, middle-class town 25 miles west of Boston — he became a carpenter and, later, a state industrial-safety official; and after raising four children, she taught biology at a middle school. Many of her friends from grade school never left Framingham, either, so after 60 years, she still sees a half dozen of them every six weeks.

I visited the Bellolis at their home in Framingham last month, and when I asked Eileen about her old friends, she jumped up from her rose-colored rocking chair, ran to her cabinet and pulled down a binder filled with class photos and pictures from her school reunions. Every five years, she told me, she helps organize a reunion, and each time they manage to collect a group of about 30 students she has known since elementary and junior high school. She opened the binder and flipped through the pictures, each one carefully laminated, with a label on the back listing each classmate’s name. “I’m a Type A personality,” she said.

As I leafed through the binder, I could see that the Bellolis and their friends stayed in very good health over the years. As they aged, they mostly remained trim, even as many other Framingham residents succumbed to obesity. The fattening of America annoys Eileen — “people are becoming more and more accustomed to not taking responsibility for their actions,” she said — and she particularly prides herself on remaining active. Almost every day she does a three-mile circuit inside the local mall with her husband and a cluster of friends, though she speed walks so rapidly that some gripe about her breakneck pace. Her one vice used to be smoking, usually right after her teaching day ended. “I would take myself to Friendly’s with a book, and I would sit there and have two cups of coffee and two cigarettes,” she said. At the time, her cigarette habit didn’t seem like a problem; most of her friends also smoked socially. But in the late 1980s, a few of them began to quit, and pretty soon Eileen felt awkward holding a cigarette off to one side when out at a restaurant. She quit, too, and within a few years nobody she knew smoked anymore.

In the reunion photos, there is only one person who visibly degrades in health as the years pass: a boyish-faced man sporting mutton-chop sideburns. When he was younger, he looked as healthy as the rest of the crowd. But each time he showed up for the reunion, he had grown steadily heavier, until the 2003 photograph, when he looked straightforwardly obese, the only one of his size in the entire picture. Almost uniquely among the crowd, he did not remain friends with his old classmates. His only point of contact was the reunions, which he kept attending until he didn’t show up last year. It turned out he’d died.

The man’s story struck me as particularly relevant because Eileen and Joseph are part of a scientific study that might actually help explain his fate. The Bellolis are participants in the Framingham Heart Study, the nation’s most ambitious project to understand the roots of heart disease. Founded in 1948 by the National Heart Institute, the study has followed more than 15,000 Framingham residents and their descendants, bringing them in to a doctor’s office every four years, on average, for a comprehensive physical. Each time the Bellolis are examined, every aspect of their health is quantified and collected: heart rate, weight, blood levels and more. Over the decades, the Framingham study has yielded a gold mine of information about risk factors for heart disease; it was instrumental, for instance, in identifying the positive role of “good” cholesterol.

But two years ago, a pair of social scientists named Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler used the information collected over the years about Joseph and Eileen and several thousand of their neighbors to make an entirely different kind of discovery. By analyzing the Framingham data, Christakis and Fowler say, they have for the first time found some solid basis for a potentially powerful theory in epidemiology: that good behaviors — like quitting smoking or staying slender or being happy — pass from friend to friend almost as if they were contagious viruses. The Framingham participants, the data suggested, influenced one another’s health just by socializing. And the same was true of bad behaviors — clusters of friends appeared to “infect” each other with obesity, unhappiness and smoking. Staying healthy isn’t just a matter of your genes and your diet, it seems. Good health is also a product, in part, of your sheer proximity to other healthy people. By keeping in close, regular contact with other healthy friends for decades, Eileen and Joseph had quite possibly kept themselves alive and thriving. And by doing precisely the opposite, the lone obese man hadn’t.

FOR DECADES, SOCIOLOGISTS and philosophers have suspected that behaviors can be “contagious.” In the 1930s, the Austrian sociologist Jacob Moreno began to draw sociograms, little maps of who knew whom in friendship or workplace circles, and he discovered that the shape of social connection varied widely from person to person. Some were sociometric “stars,” picked by many others as a friend, while others were “isolates,” virtually friendless. In the 1940s and 1950s, social scientists began to analyze how the shape of a social network could affect people’s behavior; others examined the way information, gossip and opinion flowed through that network. One pioneer was Paul Lazarsfeld, a sociologist at Columbia University, who analyzed how a commercial product became popular; he argued it was a two-step process, in which highly connected people first absorbed the mass-media ads for a product and then mentioned the product to their many friends. (This concept later bloomed in the 1990s and in this decade with the rage for “buzz marketing” — the attempt to identify thought-leaders who would spread the word about a new product virally.) Lazarsfeld also studied how political opinions flowed through friendship circles; he would ask a group of friends to identify the most influential members of their group, then map out how a political view or support for a candidate spread through and around those individuals.

By the 1980s and 1990s, alarmed by the dangers of smoking among young Americans, health care workers began to do the same work on groupings of teenagers to discover exactly how each individual was influenced to pick up the habit. The language of contagion is part of pop culture today, thanks in part to the influence of Malcolm Gladwell’s best-selling book “The Tipping Point.” It’s now common to speak of social changes as epidemics (like the “obesity epidemic”) and to talk about “superconnectors” who are so promiscuously well linked that they exert an outsize influence in society, ushering trends into existence almost single-handedly.

Yet the truth is, scientists have never successfully demonstrated that this is really how the world works. None of the case studies directly observed the contagion process in action. They were reverse-engineered later, with sociologists or marketers conducting interviews to try to reconstruct who told whom about what — which meant that people were potentially misrecalling how they were influenced or whom they influenced. And these studies focused on small groups of people, a few dozen or a few hundred at most, which meant they didn’t necessarily indicate much about how a contagious notion spread — if indeed it did — among the broad public. Were superconnectors truly important? How many times did someone need to be exposed to a trend or behavior before they “caught” it? Certainly, scientists knew that a person could influence an immediate peer — but could that influence spread further? Despite our pop-cultural faith in social contagion, no one really knew how it worked.

Sociologists began hunting for ongoing, real-life situations in which better data could be found. A 2000 study of dorm mates at Dartmouth College by the economist Bruce Sacerdote found that they appeared to infect each other with good and bad study habits — such that a roommate with a high grade-point average would drag upward the G.P.A. of his lower-scoring roommate, and vice versa. A 2006 Princeton study found that having babies appeared to be contagious: if your sibling has a child, you’re 15 percent more likely to have one yourself in the next two years. These were tantalizing findings, but again, each was too narrow to really indicate whether and how the effect worked in the mass public. What was needed was something more ambitious, some way of mapping out the links between thousands of real-life people for years — decades, even — to see whether, and how, behaviors spread.

NICHOLAS CHRISTAKIS BEGAN taking a new look at this question in 2000 after an experience visiting terminally ill patients in the working-class neighborhoods of Chicago. Christakis is a medical doctor and sociologist at Harvard; back then, he was posted at the University of Chicago and, at the age of 38, he had made a name for himself studying the “widowhood effect,” the well-known propensity of spouses to die soon after their partners’ deaths. One of his patients was a terminally ill elderly woman with dementia who lived with her daughter as her main caregiver. The daughter was exhausted from caring for her mother for months; the daughter’s husband, in turn, was becoming ill from coping with his wife’s extreme stress. One night after visiting the dying mother, Christakis arrived back at his office and got a phone call from a friend of the husband, asking for help, explaining that he, too, was feeling overwhelmed by the situation. The mother’s sickness had, in effect, spread outward “across three degrees of separation,” Christakis told me. “This illness affects the daughter, who spreads to the husband, who spreads to the friend, the guy who calls me up,” he added. He began talking to colleagues, wondering how he could further study the phenomenon.

In 2002, a common friend introduced him to James Fowler, at the time a Harvard political-science graduate student. Fowler was researching the question of whether the decision to vote in elections could spread virally from one person to another. Christakis and Fowler agreed that social contagion was an important area of inquiry and decided the only way to settle the many unanswered questions surrounding it was to find or compile a huge data set, one that tracked thousands of people. At first, they figured they would mount their own survey. They asked for $25 million from the National Institutes of Health to track 31,000 adults for six years, but the N.I.H. said they had to find some preliminary evidence first. So they went on the hunt for an existing collection of data. They weren’t optimistic. While several large surveys of adult health exist, medical researchers have no tradition of thinking about social networks, so they rarely bother to collect data on who knows whom — which means there’s no way to track whether behaviors are spreading from person to person. Christakis and Fowler examined study after study, discarding each one.

Christakis knew about the Framingham Heart Study and arranged a visit to the town to learn more. The study seemed promising: he knew it had been underway for more than 50 years and had followed more than 15,000 people, spanning three generations, so in theory, at least, it could offer a crucial moving picture. But how to track social connections? During his visit, Christakis asked one of the coordinators of the study how she and her colleagues were able to stay in contact with so many people for so long. What happened if a family moved away? The woman reached under her desk and pulled out a green sheet. It was a form that staff members used to collect information from every participant each time they came in to be examined — and it asked them to list all their family and at least one of their friends. “They asked you, ‘Who is your spouse, who are your children, who are your parents, who are your siblings, where do they live, who is your doctor, where do you work, where do you live, who is a close friend who would know where to find you in four years if we can’t find you?” Christakis said. “And they were writing all this stuff down.” He felt a jolt of excitement: he and Fowler could use these thousands of green forms to manually reconstruct the social ties of Framingham — who knew whom, going back decades.

Over the next few years, Christakis and Fowler managed a team that painstakingly sifted through the records. When they were done, they had a map of how 5,124 subjects were connected, tracing a web of 53,228 ties between friends and family and work colleagues. Next they analyzed the data, beginning with tracking patterns of how and when Framingham residents became obese. Soon they had created an animated diagram of the entire social network, with each resident represented on their computer screens as a dot that grew bigger or smaller as he or she gained or lost weight over 32 years, from 1971 to 2003. When they ran the animation, they could see that obesity broke out in clusters. People weren’t just getting fatter randomly. Groups of people would become obese together, while other groupings would remain slender or even lose weight.

And the social effect appeared to be quite powerful. When a Framingham resident became obese, his or her friends were 57 percent more likely to become obese, too. Even more astonishing to Christakis and Fowler was the fact that the effect didn’t stop there. In fact, it appeared to skip links. A Framingham resident was roughly 20 percent more likely to become obese if the friend of a friend became obese — even if the connecting friend didn’t put on a single pound. Indeed, a person’s risk of obesity went up about 10 percent even if a friend of a friend of a friend gained weight.

“People are connected, and so their health is connected,” Christakis and Fowler concluded when they summarized their findings in a July 2007 article in The New England Journal of Medicine, the first time the prestigious journal published a study of how social networks affect health. Or as Christakis and Fowler put it in “Connected,” their coming book on their findings: “You may not know him personally, but your friend’s husband’s co-worker can make you fat. And your sister’s friend’s boyfriend can make you thin.”

Obesity was only the beginning. Over the next year, the sociologist and the political scientist continued to analyze the Framingham data, finding more and more examples of contagious behavior. Smoking, they discovered, also appeared to spread socially — in fact, a friend taking up smoking increased your chance of lighting up by 36 percent, and if you had a three-degrees-removed friend who started smoking, you were 11 percent more likely to do the same. Drinking spread socially, as did happiness and even loneliness. And in each case one’s individual influence stretched out three degrees before it faded out. They termed this the “three degrees of influence” rule about human behavior: We are tied not just to those around us, but to others in a web that stretches farther than we know.

WHEN I FIRST MET Christakis and Fowler last spring, at a downtown Manhattan cafe, they seemed like a living example of their theory: even their conversational style appeared to be contagious, each of them bursting in in the middle of a sentence to complete the other’s thought. Christakis, an intense and jovial man with bristling eyebrows and a booming voice, wore a suit with no tie and sipped a coffee. Fowler, who is 39, looked like a boyish wunderkind, wearing a T-shirt and jeans and a constant broad smile. In the two years since they published their first work, they had become relatively famous and highly controversial. People — and late-night comics — were drawn to a theory that seemed to offer a scientific basis for some exquisitely calculating behavior, like avoiding your friends if they get fat. (Or avoiding your friends merely because some of their friends’ friends gained a couple of pounds.) Newspapers splashed Christakis and Fowler’s obesity findings across front pages, and the study penetrated into corners of the popular culture generally untouched by social-science research. “My favorite was the ‘Cathy’ cartoon,” Fowler told me; in it, Cathy and two friends sit in a restaurant, chatting about the obesity paper; when the waiter comes, each woman points to another and says, “She’ll have a small dry salad and a cup of water.”

Fowler told me their work had inspired him to lose five pounds and to listen to upbeat music before he arrives home from work so he will be in a good mood when he greets his family. “I try to get myself in a mental space where I’ll be happy,” he says. “Because I know that I’m not just having an impact on my son, I’m potentially having an impact on my son’s best friend’s mother.”

But how, exactly, could obesity or happiness spread through so many links? Between one immediate peer and another, some contagious behaviors — like smoking — seem pretty commonsensical. If lots of people around you are smoking, there’s going to be peer pressure for you to start, whereas if nobody’s smoking, you’ll be more likely to stop. But the simple peer-pressure explanation doesn’t work as well with happiness or obesity: we don’t often urge people around us to eat more or implore them to be happier. (In any case, simply telling someone to be happier or unhappier isn’t likely to work.) Instead, Christakis and Fowler hypothesize that these behaviors spread partly through the subconscious social signals that we pick up from those around us, which serve as cues to what is considered normal behavior. Scientists have been documenting this phenomenon; for example, experiments have shown that if a person is seated next to someone who’s eating more, he will eat more, too, unwittingly calibrating his sense of what constitutes a normal meal. Christakis and Fowler suspect that as friends around us become heavier, we gradually change our mental picture of what “obese” looks like and give ourselves tacit permission to add pounds. With happiness, the two argue that the contagion may be even more deeply subconscious: the spread of good or bad feelings, they say, might be driven partly by “mirror neurons” in the brain that automatically mimic what we see in the faces of those around us — which is why looking at photographs of smiling people can itself often lift your mood.

“In some sense we can begin to understand human emotions like happiness the way we might study the stampeding of buffalo,” Christakis said. “You don’t ask an individual buffalo, ‘Why are you running to the left?’ The answer is that the whole herd is running to the left. Similarly, you can see pockets of unhappy and happy people clustered in the network. They don’t even know each other necessarily,” but their moods rise and fall together.

The subconscious nature of emotional mirroring might explain one of the more curious findings in their research: If you want to be happy, what’s most important is to have lots of friends. Historically, we have often thought that having a small cluster of tight, long-term friends is crucial to being happy. But Christakis and Fowler found that the happiest people in Framingham were those who had the most connections, even if the relationships weren’t necessarily deep ones.

The reason these people were the happiest, the duo theorize, is that happiness doesn’t come only from having deep, heart-to-heart talks. It also comes from having daily exposure to many small moments of contagious happiness. When you frequently see other people smile — at home, in the street, at your local bar — your spirits are repeatedly affected by your mirroring of their emotional state. Of course, the danger of being highly connected to lots of people is that you’re at risk of encountering many people when they are in bad moods. But Christakis and Fowler say their findings show that the gamble of increased sociability pays off, for a surprising reason: Happiness is more contagious than unhappiness. According to their statistical analysis, each additional happy friend boosts your good cheer by 9 percent, while each additional unhappy friend drags you down by only 7 percent. So by this logic, adding more links to your network should — mathematically — add to your store of happiness. “If you’re at the center of a network, you are going to be more susceptible to anything that spreads through it,” Fowler said. “And if happiness is spreading more reliably, then on average you’re going to be catching happy waves more often than you catch sad waves.”

The Framingham findings also suggest that different contagious behaviors spread in different ways. For example, co-workers did not seem to transmit happiness to one another, while personal friends did. But co-workers did transmit smoking habits; if a person at a small firm stopped smoking, his or her colleagues had a 34 percent better chance of quitting themselves. The difference is based in the nature of workplace relationships, Fowler contends. Smokers at work tend to cluster together outside the building; if one of them stops smoking, it reduces the conviviality of the experience. (If you’re the last smoker outside on a freezing afternoon, your behavior can seem completely ridiculous even to yourself.) But when it comes to happiness, Fowler said, “people are both cooperative and competitive at work. So when one person gets a raise, it might make him happy, but it’ll make other people jealous.”

Obesity had its own quirk: Spouses didn’t appear to have as big an effect on each other as friends. If a male Framingham subject had a male friend who became fat, his risk doubled, but if his wife became obese, his risk was increased by only 37 percent. This, Christakis and Fowler say, is because when it comes to body image, we compare ourselves primarily to people of the same sex (and in the Framingham study, all spouses were of the opposite sex). In fact, different-sexed friends didn’t transmit any obesity to one another at all. If a man became fat, his female friends were completely unaffected, and vice versa. Similarly, siblings of the same sex had a bigger impact on one another’s weight than siblings of the opposite sex.

When it came to drinking, Christakis and Fowler found a different kind of gender effect. Framingham women were considerably more influential than Framingham men. A woman who began drinking heavily increased the heavy-drinking risk of those around her, whereas heavy-drinking men had less effect on other people. Why? In the age of frat-party binge drinking, you might imagine that hard-partying men are the most risky people to be around. But Fowler says he suspects women are more influential precisely because they tend to drink less. When a woman starts drinking heavily, he says, it sends a strong signal to those around her that it’s O.K. to start boozing too.

Christakis and Fowler’s strangest finding is the idea that a behavior can skip links — spreading to a friend of a friend without affecting the person who connects them. If the people in the middle of a chain are somehow passing along a social contagion, it doesn’t make sense, on the face of it, that they wouldn’t be affected, too. The two researchers say they don’t know for sure how the link-jumping works. But they theorize that people may be able to pass along a social signal without themselves acting on it. If your friends at work become obese, even if you don’t gain weight yourself, you might become more accepting of obesity as a normal state — and unconsciously transmit that signal to your family members, who would then feel a sort of permission to gain weight themselves, knowing they wouldn’t face any sort of censure from you.

Christakis and Fowler postulate that our ability to affect people three degrees away from us may have evolutionary roots — and so may the very shape of human social networks. Tribal groups that were tightly connected were likely more able to pass along positive behaviors than those that weren’t. Christakis and Fowler say social contagion could even help explain the existence of altruism: if we can pass on altruism to distant points in a network, it would help explain why altruistic people aren’t simply constantly taken advantage of by other members of their community. Last year, to test this theory, they conducted a laboratory experiment in which participants played a “cooperation game.” Each participant was asked to share a sum of money with a small group and could choose to be either generous or selfish. Christakis and Fowler found that if someone was on the receiving end of a generous exchange, that person would become more generous to the next set of partners — until the entire larger group was infected, as it were, with altruistic behavior, which meant the altruist would benefit indirectly.

CHRISTAKIS AND FOWLER’S work has produced a variety of reactions from other scientists. Many health care experts are thrilled. After years of observing patients, they suspected that behaviors spread socially; now there was data that appeared to prove it. “It was an aha! moment,” James O. Hill, a pioneering obesity researcher at the University of Colorado, Denver, said about the time in 2007 when he read the researchers’ first obesity paper. Tom Valente, the director of the master’s of public health program at the University of Southern California and an early investigator of the role of social networks in smoking behavior, was similarly excited. “The Christakis and Fowler work is fantastic,” he told me. Among public-health practitioners, he said, their theories have “had amazing acceptance.”

But many of those who study networks are more cautious in their reactions. Unlike medical experts, these scientists specialize in the study of networks themselves — anything ranging from neighborhoods linked via the power grid to teenagers linked on Facebook — and they are familiar with the difficulty of ascertaining cause and effect in such complex constructs. As they point out, the Framingham study has found intriguing correlations in people’s behavior. Christakis and Fowler can show what appear to be waves of obesity or smoking moving across the map. But that doesn’t prove social contagion is causing the spread.

There are at least two other possible explanations. One is “homophily,” the tendency of people to gravitate toward others who are like them. People who are gaining weight might well prefer to hang out with others who are also gaining weight, just as people who are happy might seek out others who are happy. The other possible explanation is that the shared environment — and not social contagion — might be causing the people of Framingham to change in groups. If a McDonald’s opens up in a Framingham neighborhood, it could cause a cluster of people living nearby to gain weight or become slightly happier (or sadder, depending on what they think about McDonald’s). The cluster of people would appear as though they are sharing a contagious form of behavior, but it would be an illusion.

Because of the confounding factors, as they are called, of homophily and the environment, many social scientists find themselves caught in an emotional bind when it comes to Christakis and Fowler’s work. As Alex Pentland, former academic head of the M.I.T. Media Lab and an expert in unconscious social signals, told me, “You couldn’t prove what they say, but I happen to believe it.” I heard precisely the same thing from many of Pentland’s peers. They have all long suspected that human behavior is widely contagious; they just don’t think Christakis and Fowler have proved their case.

One of Christakis and Fowler’s most prominent critics is Jason Fletcher, an assistant professor of public health at Yale University. Last year, he and an economist named Ethan Cohen-Cole published two papers arguing that Christakis and Fowler had not successfully stripped out all possible homophily effects from their calculations. Fletcher initially wanted to replicate Christakis and Fowler’s analysis of the data, but he didn’t have access to their source; Christakis and Fowler have not published their network data, arguing that doing so would violate the privacy rights of the participants in the Framingham Heart Study. Faced with that obstacle, Fletcher and his colleague decided instead to test Christakis and Fowler’s mathematical techniques on a different set of data: the Add Health study, a federal-government project that tracked the health of 90,118 students at 144 high schools and middle schools between 1994 and 2002. Among the questionnaires the researchers distributed was one that asked students to list up to 10 of their friends. This allowed Fletcher to build maps of how the friends at each school were linked, school by school, giving them a set of small social networks upon which to test Christakis and Fowler’s math. (Before they stumbled upon the Framingham data, Christakis and Fowler themselves had considered using the Add Health surveys to look for social contagion. But they decided the data sets were too limited — each of the schools had only several hundred students interlinked — to produce results in which they could have confidence. They also wanted to study adults, figuring that the peer effects among teenagers are qualitatively different.)

When Fletcher analyzed the student cliques using statistical tools that he says are similar to those used by Christakis and Fowler, he found that social contagion indeed existed. But the behaviors and conditions that were apparently contagious were entirely implausible: they included acne, height and headaches. How could you become taller by hanging around with taller people? This, Fletcher concluded, called into doubt whether Christakis and Fowler’s statistical techniques really removed homophily or environmental effects — and he says this means the Framingham results are just as dubious. When I spoke to Fletcher, he said that he, too, believes social-contagion effects are real. “We are on board with the idea that they exist and they’re important,” he added. But he simply isn’t impressed by Christakis and Fowler’s evidence.

Other scientists have pointed out another important limitation in Christakis and Fowler’s work, which is that their map showing connections between the people of Framingham is necessarily incomplete. When the Framingham participants checked in every four years, they were asked to list all their family members — but only one person they considered a close friend. This could arguably mean that those eerie three-degree effects might be an illusion. For example, if John lists Allison as his friend, and Allison lists Robert as her friend, and Robert lists Samantha as his friend, then Christakis and Fowler could conclude that John is three links away from Samantha. But what if John and Samantha actually know each other from church, but didn’t have a way to indicate this on the Framingham forms? Then if John and Samantha both become slightly fatter, it might look like a social contagion is spreading through three social ties, via Allison and Robert, when in fact it’s only spreading through one link, via church.

When I raised this concern with Christakis and Fowler, they agreed that their map of friendships isn’t perfect. “This is a general problem with our study and with any similar study,” Christakis said. But he said he believes their map of the Framingham connections has far fewer holes than critics charge. When he and Fowler tallied up the green sheets, they often were able to deduce relationships between two people who didn’t explicitly list each other as acquaintances — reducing the number of false three-degree links. (One helpful fact was that many participants listed more than one friend, despite the instructions on the green sheets.) “We are not overreaching our data,” Christakis insisted.

He and Fowler also acknowledged that it is impossible to completely remove the problems of homophily and environmental effects. This doesn’t mean they agree with Fletcher; in fact, they point out that in his height-and-acne paper, he used a somewhat looser mathematical model, one that makes it easier to produce spurious correlations between people — which is why, they say, Fletcher found that acne and height were contagious. When they ran their own statistical technique on the Add Health data, they found that obesity followed precisely the same three-degree pattern of contagion as they found in Framingham.

And Christakis and Fowler point to two other findings to bolster their case for social contagion over environmental effects. One is that in the Framingham study, obesity seemed to be able to jump from friend to friend even over great distances. When people moved away, their weight gain still appeared to influence friends back in Massachusetts. In such cases, the local environment couldn’t be making both gain weight, Christakis and Fowler say.

Their other finding is more intriguing and arguably more significant: They discovered that behaviors appear to spread differently depending on the type of friendship that exists between two people. In the Framingham study, people were asked to name a close friend. But the friendships weren’t always symmetrical. Though Steven might designate Peter as his friend, Peter might not think of Steven the same way; he might never designate Steven as a friend. Christakis and Fowler found that this “directionality” mattered greatly. According to their data, if Steven becomes obese, it has no effect on Peter at all, because he doesn’t think of Steven as a close friend. In contrast, if Peter gains weight, then Steven’s risk of obesity rises by almost 100 percent. And if the two men regard each other as mutual friends, the effect is huge — either one gaining weight almost triples the other’s risk. In Framingham, Christakis and Fowler found this directionality effect even among people who lived and worked very close to each other. And that, they argue, means it can’t be the environment that is making people in Framingham fatter, since the environment ought to affect each of these friends equally.

“If a McDonald’s opens up nearby, it should make both of us gain weight simultaneously,” Christakis adds. “It shouldn’t matter whether I nominate you as a friend or you nominate me.” In fact, though, the directionality effect seems to matter very much, and that fact, in turn, buttresses the case for social contagion.

Duncan Watts, a social-network pioneer and a researcher for Yahoo, has reservations about some of Christakis and Fowler’s findings — for example, he thinks the fact that most of the Framingham participants listed only one friend “really casts some doubt” on the three-degrees theory. But he told me that the directionality effect is one finding that none of Christakis and Fowler’s critics have been able to rebut. It is, for him, the strongest evidence that the Framingham results aren’t just caused by the environment or by people flocking to others like them. “I don’t see how that can be explained any other way,” he said.

IF YOU LOOK AT A CHART showing the change in smoking rates in the United States since the 1970s, it is a picture of early public-health success that soon tails off. In 1970, the smoking rate for adults was 37 percent. It fell to 33 percent by 1980 and then fell even more precipitously between 1980 and 1990. But after that, the rate at which people quit smoking began to slow. Between 2004 and 2005, in fact, the smoking rate stayed steady; on balance, nobody quit smoking those years. Antismoking forces successfully pushed the number of smokers down to one in five people, but they now seem stuck. Smoking-cessation experts have debated why it has become so hard to get the final holdouts to quit. Perhaps, some said, it was because the average cost of a pack of cigarettes remains largely unchanged nationally since 2002.

But there might be another, hidden reason: the shape of a smoker’s social ties. When Christakis and Fowler mapped out the way Framingham people quit smoking during roughly the same period — 1971 to 2003 — they found that the decline was not evenly distributed across the town. Instead, clusters of friends all quit smoking at the same time, in a group. It was like a ballroom emptying out one table at a time. But this meant that by 2003, the remaining smokers were also not evenly distributed: instead, they existed in isolated, tightly knit clusters of like-minded nicotine fiends. Worse, those clusters had migrated to the edges of the social network, where they were less interlinked with the mass of Framingham participants. In their everyday social lives, Christakis and Fowler say, the town’s remaining smokers are thus mostly surrounded by people who still smoke, and they rarely have strong connections with nonsmokers. Nonsmoking may be contagious, but the smokers don’t appear to be close to anyone from whom they could catch the behavior.

The federal government has officially set a goal of reducing the number of smokers in the country to 12 percent of the population by 2010. But the very shape of our social networks is working against that goal, Fowler says, and this poses a potential public-health challenge. Meanwhile, public-health strategists who want to counteract obesity face the opposite problem. Since the country is gradually becoming more and more obese, when individual people do lose weight, they are more likely to be surrounded by people who are still heavy. If it’s true that obesity can affect people even three links away, that may be one reason that people have such trouble keeping weight off. Even if they form a weight-loss group to lose weight with their close friends, they will still be influenced by obese people two or three links away — people they barely know. “We know that people are wildly successful in losing weight and wildly unsuccessful in keeping it off,” Hill, the obesity researcher, says; he believes Framingham offers an important explanation of why this is.

 

Image

Mood Rings
Credit…Rumors

In essence, Christakis and Fowler’s work suggests a new way to think about public health. If they’re right, public-health initiatives that merely address the affected individuals are doomed to failure. To really grapple with bad behaviors that spread, you have to simultaneously focus on individuals who are so distant they don’t even realize they’re affecting one another. Hill says this is possible with obesity. Last year, he collaborated with David Bahr, a physicist at Regis University in Denver, to construct a computer model of society that replicates the way obesity spreads. They created a simulation of hundreds of thousands of individuals, each programmed to influence one another in precisely the same way that Christakis and Fowler documented in Framingham. To test whether their model accurately mimicked reality, they seeded it with a few obese people and set it running. The virtual society slowly became obese in the same pattern and at the same rate as Framingham. If they could accurately copy the way Framingham became obese, they figured, they could then use the model to test different ways that the spread might be halted. They began trying different experiments — like focusing on specific individuals and seeing whether or not they could use them to create a counterepidemic of skinniness.

One solution jumped out at them. In theory, the best way to fight obesity, the model predicted, isn’t to urge people to diet with a cluster of close friends. It is to encourage them to skip a link and to diet with friends of friends. That way, in your immediate social network, everyone would be surrounded on at least one side by people who are actively losing weight, and this would in turn influence those other links to begin losing weight themselves. When Hill and Bahr ran the simulation with this sort of staggered dieting, it worked: the virtual society began slimming down, and the obesity epidemic reversed itself. “It’s like you have bridging dams to try and stop the flow,” Bahr told me. (Bahr also found that the obesity epidemic could be reversed quickly, with only 1 percent of the entire population losing weight, so long as the dieters were placed in precisely the right spots. “You don’t need a lot of people, but you do need the right ones,” he said.)

In reality, of course, this sort of intervention would be quite difficult to pull off. You would have to figure out some way to persuade friends of friends to form dieting groups together. But other scientists have used Christakis and Fowler’s work to inspire more potentially practical public-health projects, some of which are now being implemented. Nathan Cobb, a smoking-cessation expert and researcher at the Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, is designing an application that Facebook users can install on their pages when they’re trying to quit smoking. The application will publicly display how long they’ve gone without cigarettes, whether they are using a nicotine patch and how much money they have saved by not smoking. The idea, Cobb says, is to take your invisible, internal battle to quit smoking and make it visible so that it can influence your friends (and friends of friends) who are still puffing away.

IT’S TEMPTING TO think, confronted by Christakis and Fowler’s work, that the best way to improve your life is to simply cut your ties to people with bad behavior. And obviously this is possible; people change their friends often, sometimes abruptly. But reshaping your social network may be more challenging than altering your behavior. There’s also compelling evidence in their research that we do not have as much control as we might think we do over the way we’re linked to other people: our location in a social network, say, or how many of our friends know each other. These patterns in our life are relatively stable, and they might, weirdly, be partly innate.

Christakis and Fowler first noticed this effect when they examined their happiness data. They discovered that people who were deeply enmeshed in friendship circles were usually much happier than “isolates,” those with few ties. But if an isolate did manage to find happiness, she did not suddenly develop more ties and migrate to a position where she was more tightly connected to others. The reverse was also true: if a well-connected person became unhappy, he didn’t lose his ties and become an isolate. Your level of connectedness appears to be more persistent than even your overall temperament. “If you picked up someone who’s well connected and dropped them into another network, they’d migrate toward the center,” Christakis said. Your place in the network affects your happiness, in other words, but your happiness doesn’t affect your place in the network.

Christakis and Fowler began to wonder if a person’s connectedness is to some degree fated from birth — a product, at least in part, of DNA. To test the idea, they conducted a study of twins. Using the Add Health school data, they located more than 500 sets of twins and analyzed where they were located in their friendship clusters. Employing statistical techniques traditionally used to parse out how much of twins’ lifestyles are attributable to their genes as opposed to their environment, they found that almost half — 46 percent — of the difference between two twins’ levels of connectedness could be explained by DNA. “On average,” they wrote, “a person with five friends has different genes than a person with one friend.” More oddly still, twins also tended to have the same “transitivity”: their friendship groupings had a strikingly similar degree of interlinking, which is the number of friends who knew one another. By and large, the people who were most tightly clustered in Framingham tended to be better off — healthier, happier and even wealthier. (Several other economic studies have also found that better-connected people make more money.) But if half the reason these people were so well positioned is related to the accident of DNA, then you could consider connectedness a new form of inequality: lucky and unlucky cards, dealt out at birth.

Social-network science ultimately offers a new perspective on an age-old question: to what extent are we autonomous individuals? “If someone does a good thing merely because they’re copying others, or they do something bad merely because they’re copying others, what credit do they deserve, or what blame do they deserve?” Christakis asks. “If I quit smoking because everyone around me quits smoking, what credit do I get” for demonstrating self-control? If you’re one of the people who are partly driven by his DNA to hang out on the periphery of society, well, that’s also where the smokers are, which means you are also more likely to pick up their habit.

To look at society as a social network — instead of a collection of individuals — can lead to some thorny conclusions. In a column published last fall in The British Medical Journal, Christakis wrote that a strictly utilitarian point of view would suggest we should give better medical care to well-connected individuals, because they’re the ones more likely to pass on the benefits contagiously to others. “This conclusion,” Christakis wrote, “makes me uneasy.”

Yet there is also, the two scientists argue, something empowering about the idea that we are so entwined. “Even as we are being influenced by others, we can influence others,” Christakis told me when we first met. “And therefore the importance of taking actions that are beneficial to others is heightened. So this network thing can cut both ways, subverting our ability to have free will, but increasing, if you will, the importance of us having free will.”

As Fowler pointed out, if you want to improve the world with your good behavior, math is on your side. For most of us, within three degrees we are connected to more than 1,000 people — all of whom we can theoretically help make healthier, fitter and happier just by our contagious example. “If someone tells you that you can influence 1,000 people,” Fowler said, “it changes your way of seeing the world.”

 

6 Responses to Mimétisme: Dis moi qui tu hantes, je te dirai quel poids tu fais (God, protect me from my friends, I’ll take care of my enemies)

  1. […] une collection d’individus : “ce sont des gens qui entretiennent des liens spécifiques. Ainsi, cent cinquante personnes qu… […]

    J'aime

  2. […] sur une récente étude de chercheurs américains qui, après l’obésité ou l’anorexie et derrière le triomphe supposé de l’individualisme le plus […]

    J'aime

  3. […] enfin à libérer nos filles et nos femmes de la tyrannie anorexisante de nos magazines et de nos défilés de mode […]

    J'aime

  4. jean-marc dit :

    Très pertinent ! Mais je pense que si l’homme grossit c’est qu’il y trouve ses avantages ! J’avoue me préférer gros..

    J'aime

  5. jcdurbant dit :

    IT’S THE WHOLE RITUAL, STUPID ! (The term “social placebo” describes how bonding and support from others could help to reduce things like pain, fatigue and anxiety, as a placebo isn’t the fake treatment per se, it’s the whole ritual of the therapeutic act, within a complex psychological and social context – who gives it to you, what they say, how much you trust them, and so on)

    “It seems that cues to cohesion and support enable the athletes to get more out of their bodies – more power, more output, higher performance – for the same level of fatigue. The hunter might get more out of his body if he knows that there are supportive individuals, part of his group, that are there running alongside him and able to help in his recovery process. »

    Emma Cohen (Oxford)

    « In order to induce powerful, robust placebo responses, you first need conditioning with the oxygen. Which means that probably, but this is just a speculation, oxygen leaves a trace in the brain. The placebo can mimic the effect, but without any drug in the body. This is a problem for anti-doping tests.”

    Fabrizio Benedetti (University of Turin)

    We normally hear about the placebo effect in a medical context. It’s the beneficial outcome from the belief that a treatment will work, rather than any other effect of the treatment itself, which often is nothing more than a sugar pill. Placebos have been shown to improve symptoms of everything from coughs and pain to depression and even Parkinson’s disease. More recently, scientists like Benedetti have become interested in how placebos could work in the world of sport. Any professional athlete will tell you that their beliefs about winning play a huge role in success, and research suggests that by modifying their expectations, the placebo effect can have a powerful impact on how fast or how far they can go. In one study, well-trained competitive cyclists were told they would receive a zero, low or high dose of caffeine before a time trial (but in reality, all of them were given a placebo – experiments in this field usually involve deception). The athletes who thought they were getting a small dose performed 1.5% better than baseline, while the high dose group showed an increase in power of 3% over a 10km (6.2 mile) race. “Three percent doesn’t sound much,” says Chris Beedie from the School of Psychology at the University of Kent, who was lead author on the study. “But in elite terms, that’s the difference between winning an Olympic medal and not making the top ten. You work very hard to get those three percents.”

    Scientists in this field are keen to understand how an inert pill can have such a dramatic effect on people who dedicate their lives to gruelling training regimes, trying to shave fractions of a second off their best time. Beedie says that the athletes themselves tend to report feeling “more up for it” or “more psyched”. So, surely there’s a simple explanation – doesn’t giving someone a placebo just make them try harder?

    “It’s very hard to disentangle in experimental terms,” Beedie admits. “The data are not definitive, but what we have seen is 2-3% higher levels of performance, without seeing higher heart rate, higher blood lactate accumulate or higher ventilation, which we’d expect to see if the athlete was simply trying harder.” In other words, it’s as if athletes on a placebo are somehow getting more economy from their bodies, like a car getting more miles out of a gallon of fuel.

    Experiments like these point to a more subconscious mechanism for how the placebo effect improves performance. Researchers are a long way from demonstrating what this might be, but there are some obvious candidates.

    One hypothesis is that the placebo effect reduces anxiety. If a cyclist thinks they’re receiving a substance that will boost their ability, they may be able to relax because they feel like they have a safety net. “Muscle tension is a fairly common component of an anxiety or stress response,” says Beedie. “And muscle tension costs energy, and energy is critical to athletes.”

    No pain means gain

    Another possibility is that the placebo effect taps into pathways that regulate pain and endurance. “One of the main limiting factors in performance and physical exercise is fatigue,” says Emma Cohen, who runs the Social Body Lab at the University of Oxford. “You can try to ignore it, but that throbbing feeling is very hard to ignore.”

    Anyone who has ever pushed themselves a bit too far during a workout will be painfully aware of what this is like. But those sensations are there for a good reason – to protect the body from damage.

    “They stop us before it’s actually really strictly necessary,” explains Cohen. “So in theory, we could go for a bit harder for a bit longer without stopping, but our body and our brain tend towards cautiously keeping something in reserve. You never know what you might need to do after the race finishes.”

    Our brains are constantly calculating how much to keep in the tank based on all kinds of information, says Cohen – signals from our muscles, what the weather is like, how thirsty we are and how far we have left to go. “But they’ll also take cognitive and emotional inputs from past experiences. The brain then anticipates how much physical exertion it can continue with, that can be safely sustained under those conditions.”

    A placebo could act like a false signal which influences this calculation, so it “unlocks” access to resources that the brain allocates to muscles during exercise. The athlete’s conscious expectation about what they’re receiving ends up manifesting subconsciously, influencing processes they don’t have voluntary control over.

    False friends

    Cohen’s Social Body Lab is interested in another factor that could affect this computation in the brain – the behaviour of other people. They’ve coined the term “social placebo” to describe how bonding and support from others could help improve performance by reducing things like pain, fatigue and anxiety.

    In experiments, they’ve shown that rowers who train in synchrony with other members of their team have higher pain thresholds than those who row alone. And they’ve demonstrated that rugby players who took part in a coordinated warm up with a teammate ran about six seconds faster in a sprint test.

    “They did this for the same level of reported fatigue, so they didn’t feel any more tired, and there was no difference in their maximum heart rate,” Cohen says. “It seems that cues to cohesion and support enable the athletes to get more out of their bodies – more power, more output, higher performance – for the same level of fatigue.”

    It’s easy to see how this might have evolved. Humans are a social species, and in our past, close bonding and relationships could have been an important signal for safety and security. “The hunter might get more out of his body if he knows that there are supportive individuals, part of his group, that are there running alongside him and able to help in his recovery process,” says Cohen.

    The placebo effect – a modern phenomenon – could be activating pre-existing pathways that evolved thousands of years ago

    Social factors may help to explain why the placebo effect exists at all. According to Benedetti, a placebo isn’t the fake treatment per se, it’s the whole ritual of the therapeutic act, within a complex psychological and social context – who gives it to you, what they say, how much you trust them, and so on. So perhaps the placebo effect – a modern phenomenon – could be activating pre-existing pathways that evolved thousands of years ago, like those that helped our ancestors make use of social bonds.

    Fake it to make it

    Pain, fatigue and anxiety reductions are all logical explanations for how the placebo effect might work. But surely something as vital for life as oxygen to a mountaineer isn’t something you can trick the brain into believing is there?

    “No, because in order to induce powerful, robust placebo responses, you first need conditioning with the oxygen,” says Benedetti. “Which means that probably, but this is just a speculation, oxygen leaves a trace in the brain.” These traces could mean that the brain anticipates the arrival of more oxygen when the placebo is administered, replicating the same physiological response even without any oxygen present.

    This kind of procedure also has other important implications for sport. It means you can give an athlete a banned substance during training, and then swap it for a placebo before the competition. “The placebo can mimic the effect, but without any drug in the body,” Benedetti explains. “This is a problem for anti-doping tests.”

    Anti-doping is also a big focus of Beedie’s research, a message he’s eager to share with athletes. “If you can go faster because of a placebo, how do you tap into that without using these drugs? How do you essentially try and capitalise on what your biology and evolution has given you?”

    That’s the fascinating thing about the placebo effect. It proves that we have the ability to do better – we just have to believe it.

    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200501-the-performance-enhancing-trick-to-being-a-better-athlete

    J'aime

Votre commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Google. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur la façon dont les données de vos commentaires sont traitées.

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :