Bayesian Learning in Social Networks
Abstract
We study the (perfect Bayesian) equilibrium of a sequential learning model over a general social network. Each individual receives a signal about the underlying state of the world, observes the past actions of a stochastically generated neighbourhood of individuals, and chooses one of two possible actions. The stochastic process generating the neighbourhoods defines the network topology. We characterize pure strategy equilibria for arbitrary stochastic and deterministic social networks and characterize the conditions under which there will be asymptotic learning—convergence (in probability) to the right action as the social network becomes large. We show that when private beliefs are unbounded (meaning that the implied likelihood ratios are unbounded), there will be asymptotic learning as long as there is some minimal amount of “expansion in observations”. We also characterize conditions under which there will be asymptotic learning when private beliefs are bounded.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Communicating only with people who share similar ideology or opinion restricts beliefs and prevents learning the truth.
“Communicating only with people who share similar ideology or opinion restricts beliefs and prevents learning the truth”
From Credibility of climate change denial in social media (2019) · cites this paper as Acemoglu et al., 2011
Increasing homophily leads people to be exposed to a narrow set of beliefs that conform to their existing beliefs.
“Increasing homophily leads to situations where people are exposed to a narrow set of beliefs (Acemoglu et al., 2011(Acemoglu et al., , 2010) ) that conforms to their existing beliefs.”
From Credibility of climate change denial in social media (2019) · cites this paper as Acemoglu et al., 2011
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Distributed Subgradient Methods for Multi-Agent Optimization
Nedic, A., & Ozdaglar, A. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.2008.2009515 · Cited by 3,719 · see citing works
Self-citationNetwork dynamics of social influence in the wisdom of crowds
Becker, J., Brackbill, D., & Centola, D. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1615978114 · Cited by 397 · see citing works
Credibility of climate change denial in social media
Samantray, A., & Pin, P. (2019) · Palgrave Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0344-4 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
- Authors
- Acemoglu, D., Dahleh, M. A., Lobel, I., & Ozdaglar, A.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- New York University (US)
- Venue
- The Review of Economic Studies
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-03-07
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1201-1236
- ISSN
- 0034-6527 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-937X
- OpenAlex
- W3022273187
- Cited by
- 754
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 70 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 54 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 37
- FWCI
- 64.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Review of Economic Studies (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic theories and models
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
- Keywords
- Bayesian learning, social networks, perfect Bayesian equilibrium, sequential learning, asymptotic learning, personal beliefs, likelihood ratios, network topology, pure Nash equilibrium
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