CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 219Opinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceSocial Media and PoliticsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks.

Goel, Sharad, Mason, Winter, Watts, Duncan J.·2010·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/a0020697
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

It is often asserted that friends and acquaintances have more similar beliefs and attitudes than do strangers; yet empirical studies disagree over exactly how much diversity of opinion exists within local social networks and, relatedly, how much awareness individuals have of their neighbors' views. This article reports results from a network survey, conducted on the Facebook social networking platform, in which participants were asked about their own political attitudes, as well as their beliefs about their friends' attitudes. Although considerable attitude similarity exists among friends, the results show that friends disagree more than they think they do. In particular, friends are typically unaware of their disagreements, even when they say they discuss the topic, suggesting that discussion is not the primary means by which friends infer each other's views on particular issues. Rather, it appears that respondents infer opinions in part by relying on stereotypes of their friends and in part by projecting their own views. The resulting gap between real and perceived agreement may have implications for the dynamics of political polarization and theories of social influence in general.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0020697

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Studies on social media have found limited evidence for homogeneous clusters on most social media platforms; users may be unlikely to rebroadcast opposing content but are often exposed to it and may respond.

    “Studies on social media have found limited evidence for the described homogeneous clusters on most social media platforms: while users may be unlikely to rebroadcast content from the opposing side, they are often exposed to it and may even respond (11, 62–69).”

    From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [63]

  • Selective disclosure could result in pluralistic ignorance because only certain political views are expressed, and disagreement is suppressed.

    “This could result in pluralistic ignorance (an exaggerated appearance of homogeneity) because only certain political views are expressed, and disagreement is suppressed233–236.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [235]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goel, S., Mason, W., & Watts, D. J.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2010
Volume
99
Issue
4
Pages
611-621
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/a0020697
OpenAlex
W2097781223
Cited by
219
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 13
FWCI
7.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (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 › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
attitude similarity, social networks, political attitudes, Facebook, friends and acquaintances, opinion diversity, stereotypes, self-projection, political polarization, social influence
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attitude, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Politics, Social Identification, Social Perception, Sociometric Techniques, United States, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Internet, Friends

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