The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scientific polarization
Open accessOverview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Producing such evidence will be substantially more difficult if companies have a heavy hand in the production, funding, and communication of research (155, 156).”
From Stewardship of global collective behavior (2021) · cites this paper as [155]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
Lyme Disease—a Tick-Borne Spirochetosis?
Burgdorfer, W., Barbour, A. G., Hayes, S. F., Benach, J. L., Grunwaldt, E., & Davis, J. P. (1982) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7043737 · Cited by 2,833
Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation
Hegselmann, R., & Krause, U. (2002) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 2,366
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011) · The Sociological Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x · Cited by 2,340
The Dissemination of Culture: A Model with Local Convergence and Global Polarization
Axelrod, R. (1997) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/0022002797041002001 · Cited by 1,918
Social Pressures in Informal Groups
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950) · The American Catholic Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3707362 · Cited by 1,831
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Oreskes, N. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1103618 · Cited by 1,814
An epidemic of oligoarticular arthritis in children and adults in three connecticut communities
Steere, A. C., Malawista, S. E., Snydman, D. R., Shope, R. E., Andiman, W. A., Ross, M. R., & Steele, F. M. (1977) · Arthritis & Rheumatism · doi:10.1002/art.1780200102 · Cited by 1,264
Jeffrey, R. C. (1965) · Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · Cited by 1,145
Social Pressures in Informal Groups, a Study of Human Factors in Housing
Keller, M., Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. W. (1952) · The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3348388 · Cited by 1,103
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Hegselmann, R., Krause, U., et al. (2006). Truth and cognitive division of labor: First steps towards a computer aided social epistemology. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 9(3), 10.
- Macy, M.W., Kitts, J.A., Flache, A., Benard, S. (2003). Polarization in dynamic networks: a Hopfield model of emergent structure. In R. Brieger, K. Carley, P. Pattison (Eds.) Dynamic social network modeling and analysis (pp. 162–173). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
- Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010). Merchants of doubt. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
- Weatherall, J.O., O’Connor, C., Bruner, J. (2018). How to Beat Science and Influence People. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.01239 . · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Stewardship of global collective behavior
Bak-Coleman, J. B., Alfano, M., Barfuss, W., Bergstrom, C. T., Centeno, M. A., Couzin, I. D., Donges, J. F., Galesic, M., Gersick, A. S., Jacquet, J., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2025764118 · Cited by 289
The Bias That Divides Us: The Science and Politics of Myside Thinking
Stanovich, K. E. (2021) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/13367.001.0001 · Cited by 152
Dorst, K. M. (2021) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.1215/00318108-10469499 · Cited by 122
Individual Representation in a Community of Knowledge
Rabb, N., Fernbach, P. M., & Sloman, S. A. (2019) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.011 · Cited by 109
The Grounds of Political Legitimacy
Peter, F. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872382.001.0001 · Cited by 70
Conformity in scientific networks
Weatherall, J. O., & O’Connor, C. (2020) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-019-02520-2 · Cited by 62
Self-citationFrom Belief Polarization to Echo Chambers: A Rationalizing Account
Begby, E. (2022) · Episteme · doi:10.1017/epi.2022.14 · Cited by 47
Maintaining Transient Diversity Is a General Principle for Improving Collective Problem Solving
Smaldino, P. E., Moser, C. J., Velilla, A. P., & Werling, M. (2023) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231180100 · Cited by 52
Practical Methodological Reform Needs Good Theory
Gervais, W. M. (2021) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691620977471 · Cited by 50
Expert authority and support for COVID-19 measures in Germany and the UK: a survey experiment
Heinzel, M., & Liese, A. (2021) · West European Politics · doi:10.1080/01402382.2021.1873630 · Cited by 49
Bloeser, K. J., McCarron, K. K., Merker, V. L., Hyde, J. K., Bolton, R. E., Anastasides, N., Petrakis, B. A., Helmer, D. A., Santos, S. L., Litke, D. R., et al. (2021) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114211 · Cited by 44
Can Confirmation Bias Improve Group Learning?
Gabriel, N., & O’Connor, C. (2024) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1017/psa.2023.176 · Cited by 35
Self-citationNetwork architectures supporting learnability
Zurn, P., & Bassett, D. S. (2020) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0323 · Cited by 31
Epistemic advantage on the margin: A network standpoint Epistemology
Wu, J. (2022) · Philosophy and Phenomenological Research · doi:10.1111/phpr.12895 · Cited by 37
Analytical Democratic Theory: A Microfoundational Approach
Farrell, H. J., Mercier, H., & Schwartzberg, M. (2022) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055422000715 · Cited by 32
How to Beat Science and Influence People: Policy Makers and Propaganda in Epistemic Networks
Weatherall, J. O., O’Connor, C., & Bruner, J. (2018) · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1093/bjps/axy062 · Cited by 96
Self-citationEndogenous Epistemic Factionalization: A Network Epistemology Approach
Weatherall, J. O., & O’Connor, C. (2018) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02675-3 · Cited by 40
Self-citationKnowledge through social networks: Accuracy, error, and polarisation
Hahn, U., Merdes, C. J., & von Sydow, M. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294815 · Cited by 30
Mis- and disinformation in a bounded confidence model
Douven, I., & Hegselmann, R. (2020) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2020.103415 · Cited by 28
Choi, S., Anderson, A. A., Cagle, S. M., Long, M., & Kelp, N. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0287870 · Cited by 25
Toward an understanding of collective intellectual humility
Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., Pärnamets, P., Bland, S., Astola, M., Cichocka, A. K., de Ridder, J., Mercier, H., Meyer, M., O’Connor, C., Porter, T., et al. (2024) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2024.09.006 · Cited by 27
Self-citationThought as a determinant of political opinion
Sloman, S. A., & Rabb, N. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.02.014 · Cited by 21
Network effects in a bounded confidence model
Douven, I., & Hegselmann, R. (2022) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A · doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.05.002 · Cited by 18
Modelling Scientific Communities
O’Connor, C. (2023) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009359535 · Cited by 16
Self-citationExploring Scientific Inquiry via Agent-Based Modelling
Šešelja, D. (2021) · Perspectives on Science · doi:10.1162/posc_a_00382 · Cited by 16
How should we promote transient diversity in science?
Wu, J., & O’Connor, C. (2023) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04037-1 · Cited by 19
Self-citationSkepticism and rumor spreading: The role of spatial correlations
Amaral, M. A., Dantas, W. G., & Arenzon, J. J. (2020) · Physical review. E · doi:10.1103/physreve.101.062418 · Cited by 16
The Function of Literature in Psychological Science
Flis, I. (2022) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1177/10892680211066466 · Cited by 15
Steiglechner, P., Keijzer, M. A., Smaldino, P. E., Moser, D., & Merico, A. (2024) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.231071 · Cited by 14
Agent‐based models of scientific interaction
Šešelja, D. (2022) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12855 · Cited by 13
Statistical Mechanics of Political Polarization
Kaufman, M., Kaufman, S., & Diep, H. T. (2022) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e24091262 · Cited by 15
Peter, F. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872382.003.0001 · Cited by 14
Social and cognitive diversity in science: introduction
Rolin, K. H., Koskinen, I., Kuorikoski, J., & Reijula, S. (2023) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04261-9 · Cited by 13
Duboisian Leadership through Standpoint Epistemology
Bright, L. K. (2023) · The Monist · doi:10.1093/monist/onad032 · Cited by 12
Steiglechner, P., Smaldino, P. E., Moser, D., & Merico, A. (2023) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2023.0372 · Cited by 13
Formal Models of Scientific Inquiry in a Social Context: An Introduction
Šešelja, D., Straßer, C., & Borg, A. (2020) · Journal for General Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s10838-020-09502-w · Cited by 13
Modeling how false beliefs spread
O’Connor, C., & Weatherall, J. O. (2021) · The Routledge Handbook of Political Epistemology · doi:10.4324/9780429326769-25 · Cited by 10
Self-citationCollectives and Epistemic Rationality
Hahn, U. (2022) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12610 · Cited by 10
The Cultural Evolution of Science
Wu, J., O’Connor, C., & Smaldino, P. E. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198869252.013.78 · Cited by 10
Self-citationThe role of source reliability in belief polarisation
Henderson, L., & Gebharter, A. (2021) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-021-03244-y · Cited by 8
Michelini, M., Osorio, J., Houkes, W., Šešelja, D., & Straßer, C. (2023) · Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation · doi:10.18564/jasss.5113 · Cited by 8
Individuals, Collectives, and Individuals in Collectives: The Ineliminable Role of Dependence
Hahn, U. (2023) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231198479 · Cited by 11
Conformity in Scientific NetworksPreprint
Weatherall, J. O., & O’Connor, C. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3391343 · Cited by 7
Self-citationPolarization is epistemically innocuous
Westfall, M. (2024) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-024-04739-0 · Cited by 6
Stanovich, K. E. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-82644-3_1 · Cited by 6
Social Sciences, What for? On the Manifold Directions of Social Research
Carre, D. J. (2019) · Theory and history in the human and social sciences · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33099-6_2 · Cited by 5
Collective wisdom in polarized groups
Bak-Coleman, J. B., Tokita, C. K., Morris, D. H., Rubenstein, D. I., & Couzin, I. D. (2022) · Collective Intelligence · doi:10.1177/26339137221104788 · Cited by 5
False Beliefs and the Social Structure of Science: Some Models and Case Studies
O’Connor, C., & Weatherall, J. O. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-36822-7_4 · Cited by 5
Self-citationEndogenous Epistemic Factionalization: A Network Epistemology ApproachPreprint
Weatherall, J. O., & O’Connor, C. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3304109 · Cited by 5
Self-citationLandscapes and Bandits: A Unified Model of Functional and Demographic Diversity
Huang, A. C. W. (2023) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1017/psa.2023.169 · Cited by 4
An overview of opinion polarization: models, drivers, and strategic solutions
Liu, S., Wu, Z., & Martínez, L. (2025) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104433 · Cited by 5
Being Rational and Being Wrong
Dorst, K. M. (2023) · Philosophers Imprint · doi:10.3998/phimp.597 · Cited by 4
Weatherall, J. O., & O’Connor, C. (2024) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.13005 · Cited by 8
Self-citationHesni, S. (2025) · doi:10.1093/9780197769577.001.0001 · Cited by 5
Mechanistic modeling for the masses
Turner, M. A., & Smaldino, P. E. (2022) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x2100039x · Cited by 4
Prediction with expert advice applied to the problem of prediction with expert advice
Herrmann, D. A. (2022) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03809-5 · Cited by 5
An Agent-Based Statistical Physics Model for Political Polarization: A Monte Carlo Study
Diep, H. T., Kaufman, M., & Kaufman, S. (2023) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e25070981 · Cited by 5
Credibility excess as an epistemic injustice
Dyck, K. (2025) · Episteme · doi:10.1017/epi.2024.44 · Cited by 3
Computational philosophy: reflections on the PolyGraphs project
Ball, B., Koliousis, A., Mohanan, A., & Peacey, M. W. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-02619-z · Cited by 3
Dellsén, F. (2024) · American Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.5406/21521123.61.1.04 · Cited by 4
Scientifically Together, Politically Apart?
Viciana, H., Astobiza, A. M., Fasce, A., & Hannikainen, I. R. (2024) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-024-00587-z · Cited by 3
Communities of Knowledge in Trouble
Rabb, N., Geana, M. V., & Sloman, S. (2023) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231187997 · Cited by 4
Explanations for Inequality and Partisan Polarization in the U.S., 1980–2020
Suhay, E., Tenenbaum, M., & Bartola, A. (2022) · The Forum · doi:10.1515/for-2022-2052 · Cited by 3
Capturing Argument in Agent-Based Models
Assaad, L., Fuchs, R., Phillips, K., Schöppl, K., & Hahn, U. (2025) · Topoi · doi:10.1007/s11245-025-10215-2 · Cited by 2
Echo chambers and why the escape plan is less ‘epistemic’ than we expect
Wu, Q. (2025) · Inquiry · doi:10.1080/0020174x.2025.2540538 · Cited by 2
Barrett, J. A. (2025) · doi:10.1093/9780197793572.001.0001 · Cited by 2
The emergence of polarised groups through source filtering
Jansson, F., & Hattiangadi, A. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-06419-x · Cited by 4
Peter, F. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872382.003.0008 · Cited by 2
Argumentation-induced rational issue polarisation
Kopecky, F. (2023) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-023-02059-6 · Cited by 3
Network Diffusion Framework to Simulate Spreading Processes in Complex Networks
Czuba, M., Nurek, M., Serwata, D., Qiu, Y.-X., Jia, M., Musiał, K., Michalski, R., & Bródka, P. (2024) · Big Data Mining and Analytics · doi:10.26599/bdma.2024.9020010 · Cited by 2
Monte Carlo Study of Agent-Based Blume-Capel Model for Political Depolarization
Diep, H. T., Kaufman, M., & Kaufman, S. (2024) · EPJ Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202430001005 · Cited by 2
Do Political Convictions Infect Every Fibre of Our Being?
Ulatowski, J. W., & Lumsden, D. P. (2023) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2023.2186752 · Cited by 3
How Should We Promote Transient Diversity in Science?Preprint
O’Connor, C., & Wu, J. (2021) · doi:10.31222/osf.io/w3xc5 · Cited by 3
Self-citationThe Cultural Evolution of SciencePreprint
Wu, J., O’Connor, C., & Smaldino, P. E. (2022) · doi:10.31222/osf.io/2ekcr · Cited by 2
Self-citationGrim, P., & Rescher, N. (2023) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04163-w · Cited by 1
Misinformation and higher-order evidence
Ball, B., Koliousis, A., Mohanan, A., & Peacey, M. W. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03806-8 · Cited by 1
Gabriel, N. (2025) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2025.2463057 · Cited by 1
How the Structure of Scientific Communities Could Affect the Public Uptake of Uncertain Science
Ferrari, S., Lammers, W., & Wenmackers, S. (2025) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1017/psa.2025.11 · Cited by 2
Evidencing the Impact of Misinformed and Disinformed Beliefs on Individual and Group Behaviors
Osman, M. (2025) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2025.2482355 · Cited by 1
Arguing in the Face of Disagreement: Is It Worth It?
Jiménez‐Rolland, M. (2025) · Episteme · doi:10.1017/epi.2025.10049 · Cited by 1
Bayesians Commit the Gambler's Fallacy
Dorst, K. M. (2026) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.70171 · Cited by 1
Ullian, K. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1748945 · Cited by 1
Theoretical Virtue, Transient Diversity, and the Epistemic Success of Scientific Communities
Dyck, K. (2026) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1017/psa.2026.10199 · Cited by 1
Napchi, O. (2022) · The economics of information, communication and entertainment · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-95330-0_6 · Cited by 1
A Bibliometric Analysis of Experimental Philosophy of Language
Osorio-Mancilla, J. (2023) · Logic, argumentation & reasoning · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-28908-8_2 · Cited by 1
Jiménez-Loaisa, F. J., & Jareño-Ruíz, D. (2024) · methaodos revista de ciencias sociales · doi:10.17502/mrcs.v12i2.821 · Cited by 1
Huremović, K., & Özkes, A. (2020) · Journal of Mathematical Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jmateco.2022.102732 · Cited by 1
Bayesians Commit the Gambler's FallacyPreprint
Dorst, K. M. (2024) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/4jzwe · Cited by 1
Polarization in NetworksPreprint
Huremović, K., & Özkes, A. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3651145
Can scientists change their minds?
Gordon, M., & Pfeiffer, T. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01201-w
Mechanistic Modeling for the MassesPreprint
Turner, M. A., & Smaldino, P. E. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/8pj9n
Either/or/and : From dualism to ambivalence
van der Weele, C. (2021) · doi:10.18174/568791
Responding to Political Disagreements
Peter, F. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872382.003.0009
Peter, F. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872382.003.0003
Peter, F. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872382.003.0004
Peter, F. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872382.002.0005
Peter, F. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872382.003.0010
Peter, F. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872382.002.0003
Peter, F. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872382.003.0006
Metadata
- Authors
- O’Connor, C., & Weatherall, J. O.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Corresponding author
- O’Connor, Cailin
- Venue
- European Journal for Philosophy of Science
- Published
- 2018-08-15
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 855-875
- ISSN
- 1879-4912 (ISSN-L)
- 1879-4920
- OpenAlex
- W2905051439
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 21.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- European Journal for Philosophy of Science (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
- PhilSci-Archive (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1535139)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
- Keywords
- belief polarization, social learning, evidence collection, true belief, belief updating, scientific communities
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
