Biased Assimilation, Homophily, and the Dynamics of Polarization
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [9]9. Carter B (March 29, 2010) CNN fails to stop fall in ratings. NY Times, Business Section, p B1. 10.Adamic L, Glance N. The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog. In LinkKDD 05: Proc Third International Workshop on Link Discovery. In: Adibi J, Grobelnik M, Mladenic D, Pantel P, editors. New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2005. pp. 36–43. [Google Scholar] 11.Hargittai E, Gallo J. Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers. Public Choice. 2007;134:67–86. [Google Scholar] 12.Gilbert E, Bergstrom T, Karahalios K. Blogs are echo chambers: Blogs are echo chambers.Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. In: Sprague RH Jr, editor. Wasington DC: IEEE Computer Society; 2009. pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar] 13.Lawrence E, Sides J, Farrell H. Self-segregation or deliberation? Blog readership, participation, and polarization in American politics. Perspect Polit. 2010;8(1):141–157. [Google Scholar] 14.Wolfe A. One Nation, After All: What Americans Really Think About God, Country, Family, Racism, Welfare, Immigration, Homosexuality, Work, The Right, The Left and Each Other. New York: Penguin Group; 1999. [Google Scholar] 15.Fiorina MP, Abrams SJ, Pope JC. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Pearson Education; 2005. [Google Scholar] 16.Baron RS, et al. Social corroboration and opinion extremity. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1996;32(6):537–560. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1996.0024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 17.Sunstein CR. Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ Press; 2002. [Google Scholar] 18.DeGroot MH. Reaching a consensus. J Am Stat Assoc. 1974;69(345):118–121. [Google Scholar] 19.Friedkin NE, Johnsen EC. Social influence and opinions. J Math Sociol. 1990;15(3–4):193–206. [Google Scholar] 20.Krause U. A discrete nonlinear and non-autonomous model of consensus formation. In: Elaydi S, Ladas G, Popenda J, Rakowski J, editors. Communications in Difference Equations. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers; 2000. pp. 227–236. [Google Scholar] 21.Acemoglu D, Como G, Fagnani F, Ozdaglar AE. 2010. Opinion fluctuations and disagreement in social networks. arXiv:1009.2653. 22.Bindel D, Kleinberg JM, Oren S. How bad is forming your own opinion? In: Ostrovsky R, editor. Proc IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 2011. (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Computer Society, Washington DC), pp 57–66. [Google Scholar] 23.Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1979;37(11):2098–2109. [Google Scholar] 24.Miller AG, McHoskey JW, Bane CM, Dowd TG. The attitude polarization phenomenon: Role of response measure, attitude extremity, and behavioral consequences of reported attitude change. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;64(4):561–574. [Google Scholar] 25.Munro GD, et al. Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996 U.S. presidential debate. Basic Appl Soc Psych. 2002;24(1):15–26. [Google Scholar] 26.Taber CS, Lodge M. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am J Pol Sci. 2006;50(3):755–769. [Google Scholar] · DOI
- [27]27. Sunstein C (September 18, 2012) Breaking up the echo. NY Times, Op-Ed Section, p A25. 28.Centola D. An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. Science. 2011;334(6060):1269–1272. doi: 10.1126/science.1207055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 29.Page L, Brin S, Motwani R, Winograd T. The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web. 1999. Technical Report (Stanford InfoLab, Stanford, CA) [Google Scholar] 30.Heider F. Attitudes and cognitive organization. J Psychol. 1946;21(1):107–112. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 31.Festinger L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford Univ Press, Stanford, CA) 32.Baldassarri D, Gelman A. Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. Am J Sociol. 2008;114(2):408–446. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1010098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 33.Golub B, Jackson MO 2011. How homophily affects the speed of learning and best response dynamics. Q J Econ 127(3):1287–1338. 34.Yildiz E, Acemoglu D, Ozdaglar AE, Saberi A, Scaglione A. 2011. Discrete opinion dynamics with stubborn agents. SSRN eLibrary, in press. 35.Tsitsiklis JN. 1984. Problems in decentralized decision making and computation. PhD thesis (Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA) [Google Scholar] 36.Lempel R, Moran S. Salsa: The stochastic approach for link-structure analysis. ACM Trans Inf Syst. 2001;19(2):131–160. [Google Scholar] 37.Linden G, Smith B, York J. Amazon.com recommendations: Item-to-item collaborative filtering. Internet Computing, IEEE. 2003;7(1):76–80. [Google Scholar] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfw006 · Cited by 1,992 · see citing works
Models of Social Influence: Towards the Next Frontiers
Flache, A., Mäs, M., Feliciani, T., Chattoe-Brown, E., Deffuant, G., Huet, S., & Lorenz, J. (2017) · Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation · doi:10.18564/jasss.3521 · Cited by 601 · see citing works
Mäs, M., & Flache, A. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074516 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C. R., & Hertwig, R. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0889-7 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Measuring and moderating opinion polarization in social networks
Matakos, A., Terzi, E., & Tsaparas, P. (2017) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-017-0527-9 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Disambiguation of social polarization concepts and measures
Bramson, A., Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Fisher, S., Berger, W., Sack, G., & Flocken, C. (2016) · The Journal of Mathematical Sociology · doi:10.1080/0022250x.2016.1147443 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Link recommendations: Their impact on network structure and minorities
Ferrara, A., Espin-Noboa, L., Karimi, F., & Wagner, C. (2022) · 14th ACM Web Science Conference 2022 · doi:10.1145/3501247.3531583 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dandekar, P., Goel, A., & Lee, D.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- Lecture Notes in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 559-559
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- 1611-3349
- PMC
- PMC3625335
- OpenAlex
- W2149852188
- Cited by
- 201
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 4.97
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
- Keywords
- opinion formation, social polarization, biased assimilation, homophily, DeGroot model, opinion dynamics, recommender systems, content personalization, social networks
- MeSH terms
- Acculturation, Algorithms, Attitude, Computer Simulation, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Prejudice, Social Behavior, Social Support, Models, Statistical, Internet
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
