Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization
Open accessAbstract
We study the issue of polarization in society through a model of opinion formation. We say an opinion formation process is polarizing if it results in increased divergence of opinions. Empirical studies have shown that homophily, i.e., greater interaction between like-minded individuals, results in polarization. However, we show that DeGroot’s well-known model of opinion formation based on repeated averaging can never be polarizing, even if individuals are arbitrarily homophilous. We generalize DeGroot’s model to account for a phenomenon well known in social psychology as biased assimilation: When presented with mixed or inconclusive evidence on a complex issue, individuals draw undue support for their initial position, thereby arriving at a more extreme opinion. We show that in a simple model of homophilous networks, our biased opinion formation process results in polarization if individuals are sufficiently biased. In other words, homophily alone, without biased assimilation, is not sufficient to polarize society. Quite interestingly, biased assimilation also provides a framework to analyze the polarizing effect of Internet-based recommender systems that show us personalized content.
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
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?
The comparative approach allows applying the concepts and measures across issues or time without requiring new concepts or measures.
“The comparative approach allows us to apply our concepts and measures across issues or time without requiring new concepts or measures (Dandekar, Goel, & Lee, 2013).”
From Disambiguation of social polarization concepts and measures (2016) · cites this paper as Dandekar, Goel, & Lee, 2013
In “Measuring Polarization” (page not provided), the paper applies the same network disagreement index to opinions before and after an opinion-formation process, supporting comparison over time without a new measure. Our copy does not establish that the citing authors’ concepts and measures can also be applied across different issues without modification. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 30
- Poole KT, Rosenthal H (1984) The polarization of american politics. J Polit 46(4): 1061-1079.
- Poole KT, Rosenthal H (1991) Patterns of congressional voting. Am J Pol Sci 35(1):228-278.
- Hill S (2009) Divided we stand: The polarization of American Politics. Natl Civ Rev 94(4):3-14.
- McCarty N, Poole KT, Rosenthal H (2006) Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
- Bruch EE, Mare RD (2006) Neighborhood choice and neighborhood change. Am J Sociol 112(3):667-709.
- Brandt C, Immorlica N, Kamath G, Kleinberg R (2012) An analysis of one-dimensional Schelling segregation. Proc 44th symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '12, eds Karloff HJ, Pitassi T (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), pp 789-804.
- Adamic L, Glance N (2005) The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog. In LinkKDD 05: Proc Third International Workshop on Link Discovery, eds Adibi J, Grobelnik M, Mladenic D, Pantel P (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), pp 36-43.
- Gilbert E, Bergstrom T, Karahalios K (2009) . Blogs are echo chambers: Blogs are echo chambers.Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, ed
- Sprague RH, Jr. (IEEE Computer Society, Wasington DC), pp 1-10.
- Lawrence E, Sides J, Farrell H (2010) Self-segregation or deliberation? Blog readership, participation, and polarization in American politics. Perspect Polit 8(1):141-157.
- Wolfe A (1999) One Nation, After All: What Americans Really Think About God, Country, Family, Racism, Welfare, Immigration, Homosexuality, Work, The Right, The Left and Each Other (Penguin Group, New York).
- Fiorina MP, Abrams SJ, Pope JC (2005) Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America (Pearson Education, New York).
- Baron RS, et al. (1996) Social corroboration and opinion extremity. J Exp Soc Psychol 32(6):537-560.
- Sunstein CR (2002) Republic.com (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, NJ).
- DeGroot MH (1974) Reaching a consensus. J Am Stat Assoc 69(345):118-121.
- Friedkin NE, Johnsen EC (1990) Social influence and opinions. J Math Sociol 15(3-4): 193-206.
- Acemoglu D, Como G, Fagnani F, Ozdaglar AE (2010) Opinion fluctuations and dis- agreement in social networks. arXiv:1009.2653. · arXiv
- Bindel D, Kleinberg JM, Oren S (2011) How bad is forming your own opinion? Proc IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, ed Ostrovsky R (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Computer Society, Washington DC), pp 57-66.
- Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 37(11):2098-2109.
- Miller AG, McHoskey JW, Bane CM, Dowd TG (1993) The attitude polarization phe- nomenon: Role of response measure, attitude extremity, and behavioral conse- quences of reported attitude change. J Pers Soc Psychol 64(4):561-574.
- Munro GD, et al. (2002) Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996 U.S. presidential debate. Basic Appl Soc Psych 24(1):15-26.
- Taber CS, Lodge M (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am J Pol Sci 50(3):755-769.
- Centola D (2011) An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. Science 334(6060):1269-1272.
- Heider F (1946) Attitudes and cognitive organization. J Psychol 21(1):107-112.
- Baldassarri D, Gelman A (2008) Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. Am J Sociol 114(2):408-446.
- Golub B, Jackson MO (2011) How homophily affects the speed of learning and best response dynamics. Q J Econ 127(3):1287-1338.
- Yildiz E, Acemoglu D, Ozdaglar AE, Saberi A, Scaglione A (2011) Discrete opinion dynamics with stubborn agents. SSRN eLibrary, in press.
- 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).
- Lempel R, Moran S (2001) Salsa: The stochastic approach for link-structure analysis. ACM Trans Inf Syst 19(2):131-160.
- Linden G, Smith B, York J (2003) Amazon.com recommendations: Item-to-item col- laborative filtering. Internet Computing, IEEE 7(1)76-80.
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
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
Robust Clustering in Generalized Bounded Confidence Models
Kurahashi-Nakamura, T., Mäs, M., & Lorenz, J. (2016) · Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation · doi:10.18564/jasss.3220 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Opinion dynamics with backfire effect and biased assimilation
Chen, X., Tsaparas, P., Lijffijt, J., & De Bie, T. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256922 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
The great refusal: The west, the rest, and the new regulations on homosexuality, 1970–2015
Ferguson, J. L. (2022) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/723107 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Modeling Confirmation Bias and Peer Pressure in Opinion Dynamics
Liu, L., Wang, X., Chen, X., Tang, S., & Zheng, Z. (2021) · Frontiers in Physics · doi:10.3389/fphy.2021.649852 · Cited by 23 · 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. T.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Management Science and Engineering and (by courtesy) Computer Science, and
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2013-03-27
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 5791-5796
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W4240828654
- Cited by
- 435
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 9.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0947670, 0904325, 1147470)
- 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 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