Muslim World Report

Influence Over Popularity: Rethinking Social Success in College

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 21, 2025 9:39 AM | 8 min read | 1629 words

TL;DR: A recent study from Brown University indicates that influence in university settings arises from understanding social networks rather than sheer popularity. This shift in focus has implications for community engagement, political activism, and university practices that prioritize genuine connections over superficial acclaim.

The Shifting Dynamics of Influence: Lessons from University Social Structures

In the fast-paced milieu of university life, social dynamics play a pivotal role in shaping student experiences and opportunities. A recent study from Brown University has illuminated a crucial finding: influence among first-year students is more contingent on their understanding of social networks than on mere popularity. This revelation carries significant implications that extend well beyond university campuses to broader societal structures, including political discourse, social movements, and community organization. Such dynamics are not just academic; they reflect the very fabric of power in our society, resonating with insights from sociologists who have long explored the intersection of social networks and influence (Marsden & Friedkin, 1993).

The Brown study tracked first-year students throughout their academic year, revealing a consistent pattern:

  • Individuals who actively navigated the intricate web of cliques and communities were more likely to wield influence compared to those who achieved surface-level popularity (FeldmanHall et al., 2023).
  • The “strength of weak ties” allows those who are well-connected across different social groups to serve as crucial conduits of information and influence (Granovetter, 1973).

Dr. Oriel FeldmanHall, the study’s senior author, emphasized that the most influential students often experienced a decline in status over time. This underscores a vital truth: relationships based on genuine connections are ultimately more sustainable than those premised on superficial acclaim. The implications of this inquiry compel us to re-evaluate the metrics of social success, urging students to prioritize meaningful interactions over merely amassing large circles of acquaintances.

Implications for Community Engagement and Political Activism

The ramifications extend to how we approach community engagement and political activism. In an era marked by increasing polarization—exacerbated by social media platforms that amplify the loudest voices rather than the most thoughtful—this research prompts a reconsideration of how we build movements. By:

  • Emphasizing the understanding of the social fabric of communities
  • Fostering deeper relationships
  • Cultivating trust

we can transform activist engagement. This dynamic resonates with insights from sociologists like Ibarra and Andrews (1993), who underscore the importance of network centrality and proximity in shaping perceptions within organizational structures.

As we grapple with the complexities of societal challenges, this research beckons us to question the existing frameworks that guide our approaches to influence. Understanding the subtleties of social dynamics may well hold the key to nurturing a more inclusive and equitable society. The findings from Brown compel stakeholders across various sectors—education, politics, social justice—to reassess their strategies for influence and engagement, moving away from a simplistic understanding of popularity to one that appreciates the nuanced connections that hold communities together. Such nuanced understanding is echoed in the work on social networks by authors like Lewis et al. (2011), who reveal that the paths we take toward engagement significantly shape our collective narratives.

What If The Focus on Influence Reshapes Activism?

If the emerging understanding of influence as more significant than popularity gains traction among activist movements, we could witness a fundamental transformation in how campaigns are structured and executed. Activists may begin to:

  • Prioritize building genuine alliances
  • Focus on grassroots movements that are deeply embedded within local communities (Walgrave et al., 2011)

This shift emphasizes collaboration and mutual support, rather than the charismatic figurehead model often glorified in contemporary activism.

A significant consideration in this transformation might be resource allocation. Instead of pouring funding into advertising campaigns aimed at mass appeal, organizations could direct efforts toward:

  • Community-building initiatives (Gilster, 2012)
  • Engaging local grassroots voices that elevate discourse

This approach resonates with findings from community engagement studies that highlight the interplay of social networks and local activism to foster a sense of belonging and efficacy (Faragó et al., 2018).

This transformation could also yield a more intersectional approach to activism. Understanding and respecting the diverse layers of social dynamics within and among communities could prompt collaborations that bridge gaps found in traditional activism. Marginalized voices may find greater representation as movements become more attuned to the specific contexts in which they operate—an idea thoroughly explored in contemporary research on youth civic engagement (Flanagan & Levine, 2010).

However, this shift comes with challenges. The traditional allure of popularity can be a double-edged sword; while it often leads to greater visibility, it can overshadow important issues in favor of sensationalism. Activists must navigate this landscape carefully, ensuring that the pursuit of genuine relationships does not compromise their core messages (Tillema et al., 2010). Furthermore, as the emphasis on influence grows, potential factions within movements may arise, with some advocating for a return to popular strategies while others push for deeper engagement. Such internal divisions could weaken overall efforts if not carefully managed.

What If Universities Adopted These Findings?

Should universities embrace the findings from the Brown study, we may see a seismic shift in how educational institutions approach student engagement and community interactions. The implications for curricular design, student services, and social programming could be profound, leading to environments that cultivate resilience, empathy, and true collaboration among students.

A potential outcome could be a redefined approach to student orientation programs. Rather than merely connecting students with popular organizations, universities might prioritize:

  • Workshops and events focusing on building interpersonal skills
  • Encouraging students to understand social dynamics

This aligns with Freire’s notion of critical consciousness, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and negotiating power dynamics, which is crucial for fostering engagement and activism within academic spaces (Jasis & Ordoñez–Jasis, 2011).

Moreover, this understanding of influence could reshape leadership opportunities within universities. Instead of promoting students solely based on visibility or numerical popularity within student government elections, institutions could implement more comprehensive evaluations that consider a candidate’s ability to foster relationships and navigate social networks. Such a shift would likely lead to more effective leadership that resonates with the needs of the student body, promoting inclusivity and collaboration.

However, this transition may not be seamless. Institutional inertia, resistance from traditionalists who favor established hierarchies, and the challenge of redefining metrics for success could pose significant hurdles. It will require a concerted effort from faculty, administration, and students alike to embrace a new paradigm of influence that prioritizes community building over individual acclaim. The intersection of student activism and community engagement has been shown to enrich educational experiences and foster a sense of belonging, which could serve as a powerful catalyst for institutional transformation (Richter et al., 2020).

Strategic Maneuvers: Embracing Genuine Connections

As the implications of the Brown study unfold, stakeholders in multiple sectors—including education, community organizations, and political institutions—must consider strategic maneuvers that embrace the shift towards meaningful influence. These moves could reshape how we understand success, engagement, and ultimately, impact.

For educational institutions, it will be essential to integrate these insights into program design and community outreach strategies. Restructuring student initiatives to focus on group participation and collaborative projects rather than only rewarding individual achievements could be transformative. Workshops on social networking, empathy-building, and conflict resolution could become integral components of the curriculum, equipping students with the necessary tools for effective engagement in their communities (Montagno & Garrett-Walker, 2021).

Community organizations should also reconsider their operational strategies. Moving away from reliance on broad-based mobilization efforts, organizations can invest in cultivating leaders within local spaces who understand the intricate networks of influence. Forming partnerships with smaller, grassroots organizations can create a supportive ecosystem that emphasizes deep-rooted connections and shared objectives (Kavanaugh et al., 2005).

Political institutions, especially in a climate marked by division and polarization, must recognize the value of fostering genuine ties among constituents. Restructuring town hall meetings to encourage dialogue rather than debate, allowing residents to share their experiences and influence local policy discussions meaningfully, will be key. Elected officials could benefit from a more nuanced understanding of their constituents’ networks, tailoring their policies and outreach by genuinely listening to the communities they serve.

Finally, individuals—whether students, activists, or community leaders—should reflect on their roles within these networks. Emphasizing authenticity in interactions and seeking to build trust will be paramount in navigating a world where influence is increasingly shaped by genuine relationships rather than popularity. As we adapt to these evolving dynamics, a collective shift towards valuing meaningful connections can lead to stronger, more resilient communities capable of addressing challenges with insight and understanding (Speed, 2006).

Conclusion

The findings from the Brown University study urge us to rethink our approach to social dynamics, influencing not only university experiences but broader societal structures. By emphasizing depth over breadth, we can foster a new era of connection, engagement, and ultimately, a more equitable society.

References

  • FeldmanHall, O., et al. (2023). Social networks and first-year students: The power of influence over popularity. Brown University Study.
  • Flanagan, C. A., & Levine, P. (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. The Future of Children, 20(1), 1-24.
  • Gilster, M. E. (2012). Comparing neighborhood-focused activism and volunteerism: Psychological well-being and social connectedness. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(1), 1-16.
  • Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
  • Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. (1993). Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 274-303.
  • Jasis, P., & Ordoñez-Jasis, R. (2011). Latino parent involvement. Urban Education, 46(1), 105-138.
  • Kavanaugh, A., et al. (2005). Community Networks: Where offline communities meet online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), 0-34.
  • Richter, J., et al. (2020). Tempered radicalism and intersectionality: Scholar-activism in the neoliberal university. Journal of Social Issues, 76(2), 279-300.
  • Walgrave, S., Bennett, W. L., Van Laer, J., & Breunig, C. (2011). Multiple engagements and network bridging in contentious politics: Digital media use of protest participants. Mobilization, 16(3), 1-24.
← Prev Next →