The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Information gerrymandering and undemocratic decisions
Abstract
People must integrate disparate sources of information when making decisions, especially in social contexts. But information does not always flow freely. It can be constrained by social networks 1-3 and distorted by zealots and automated bots 4. Here we develop a voter game as a model system to study information flow in collective decisions. Players are assigned to competing groups (parties) and placed on an 'influence network' that determines whose voting intentions each player can observe. Players are incentivized to vote according to partisan interest, but also to coordinate their vote with the entire group. Our mathematical analysis uncovers a phenomenon that we call information gerrymandering: the structure of the influence network can sway the vote outcome towards one party, even when both parties have equal sizes and each player has the same influence. A small number of zealots, when strategically placed on the influence network, can also induce information gerrymandering and thereby bias vote outcomes. We confirm the predicted effects of information gerrymandering in social network experiments with n = 2,520 human subjects. Furthermore, we identify extensive information gerrymandering in real-world influence networks, including online political discussions leading up to the US federal elections, and in historical patterns of bill co-sponsorship in the US Congress and European legislatures. Our analysis provides an account of the vulnerabilities of collective decision-making to systematic distortion by restricted information flow. Our analysis also highlights a group-level social dilemma: information gerrymandering can enable one party to sway decisions in its favour, but when multiple parties engage in gerrymandering the group loses its ability to reach consensus and remains trapped in deadlock.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“Recent work suggests that network structural effects can lead to “information gerrymandering” that induces undemocratic outcomes whereby a majority of the electorate votes against the electorate’s interest”
From Stewardship of global collective behavior (2021) · cites this paper as [97]
In the citing paper
“even a small number of agents with aggressive attitudes can have a substantial influence on the majority view, a process called “information gerrymandering” (66).”
From Troll and divide: the language of online polarization (2022) · cites this paper as [66]
In the citing paper
“Exposure to polarizing attitudes even produced by a small number of agents can have a devastating effect on political compromise in a social network”
From Troll and divide: the language of online polarization (2022) · cites this paper as [66]
Citations
Cites
Hardin, G. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 · Cited by 25,167
The spread of true and false news online
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap9559 · Cited by 8,847
Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aao2998 · Cited by 4,160
Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160 · Cited by 3,245
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,996
The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog
Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005) · Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery · doi:10.1145/1134271.1134277 · Cited by 2,619
A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization
Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J. H. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11421 · Cited by 2,575
The spreading of misinformation online
Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H. E., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1517441113 · Cited by 2,407
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011 · Cited by 2,022
Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1804840115 · Cited by 1,863
Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?
Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797615594620 · Cited by 1,472
Rand, D. G., & Nowak, M. A. (2013) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.003 · Cited by 1,308
Political Polarization on Twitter
Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2011) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.4589064 · Cited by 1,254
Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1806781116 · Cited by 947
Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion
Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. J. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1710966114 · Cited by 892
Public understanding of climate change in the United States.
Weber, E. U., & Stern, P. C. (2011) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0023253 · Cited by 841
Political Polarization on Twitter
Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14126 · Cited by 626 · cited 1×
“j=i N/2+Zp ✓ N/2 Zp i j ◆ q j p ✓ N/2 Zy j ◆ (1 qy) j (7)”
Moral outrage in the digital age
Crockett, M. J. (2017) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0213-3 · Cited by 618
Uninformed individuals promote democratic consensus in animal groups
Couzin, I. D., Ioannou, C. C., Demirel, G., Gross, T., Torney, C. J., Hartnett, A., Conradt, L., Levin, S. A., & Leonard, N. E. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1210280 · Cited by 451
(2017) · Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) · Cited by 362
Legislative cosponsorship networks in the US House and Senate
Fowler, J. H. (2005) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2005.11.003 · Cited by 335
Collective action and the evolution of social norm internalization
Gavrilets, S., & Richerson, P. J. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1703857114 · Cited by 294
Locally noisy autonomous agents improve global human coordination in network experiments
Shirado, H., & Christakis, N. A. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature22332 · Cited by 288
Automating power: Social bot interference in global politics
Woolley, S. (2016) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v21i4.6161 · Cited by 281
Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends
Guilbeault, D., Becker, J. A., & Centola, D. M. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1722664115 · Cited by 204
Behavioral experiments on biased voting in networks
Kearns, M. J., Judd, S. J., Tan, J., & Wortman, J. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0808147106 · Cited by 157
Measuring Bias and Uncertainty in Ideal Point Estimates via the Parametric Bootstrap
Lewis, J. B., & Poole, K. T. (2004) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mph015 · Cited by 109
Network patterns of legislative collaboration in twenty parliaments
Briatte, F. (2016) · Network Science · doi:10.1017/nws.2015.31 · Cited by 29
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Stephanopoulos, N. O. & McGhee, E. Partisan gerrymandering and the efficiency gap. Univ. Chic. Law Rev. 82, 831–900 (2015).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere
Folke, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Galaz, V., Westley, F. R., Lamont, M., Scheffer, M., Österblom, H., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., et al. (2021) · AMBIO · doi:10.1007/s13280-021-01544-8 · Cited by 863
Jusup, M., Holme, P., Kanazawa, K., Takayasu, M., Romić, I., Wang, Z., Geček, S., Lipić, T., Boris Podobnik, A., Wang, L., et al. (2022) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2021.10.005 · Cited by 688
Misinformation in and about science
West, J. D., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1912444117 · Cited by 391
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
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Stewart, A. J., Mosleh, M., Diakonova, M., Arechar, A. A., Rand, D. G., & Plotkin, J. B.
- Affiliations
- University of Houston (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (MX)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Stewart, Alexander J.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2019-09-04
- Volume
- 573
- Issue
- 7772
- Pages
- 117-121
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W2972275627
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 6
- FWCI
- 12.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
- Keywords
- group decision making, influence networks, Zealots, bots, social dilemmas, democratic legitimacy, information flow, political polarization, online political discussion, United States Congress
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Democracy, Game Theory, Group Processes, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Politics, Truth Disclosure, Bias, Knowledge, Social Networking, Social Media
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
