The DOI matches its Crossref record.
New Evidence About the Existence of a Bandwagon Effect in the Opinion Formation Process
Abstract
This study undertakes an empirical test of the "bandwagon effect"—individuals rallying to the majority opinion. The study is done outside the electoral context on two issues: abortion and the constitutional future of Quebec. A panel is used, as well as an experimental design in which respondents are told the state and direction of public opinion. Three methodological criteria are used as minimal requirements for a satisfac tory test of the bandwagon thesis. "Underdogging," as well as opinion movement due to factors outside the experiment, are both accounted for. Though the reasons for a bandwagon remain unclear, the authors demon strate that a bandwagon effect of 5-7 percent existed on both issues.
Overview
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.
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
Cited by
Trending Norms: A Lever for Encouraging Behaviors Performed by the Minority
Mortensen, C. R., Neel, R., Cialdini, R. B., Jaeger, C. M., Jacobson, R. P., & Ringel, M. M. (2019) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550617734615 · Cited by 221
Enhancing AI-Assisted Group Decision Making through LLM-Powered Devil's Advocate
Chiang, C.-W., Lu, Z., Li, Z., & Yin, M. (2024) · Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3640543.3645199 · Cited by 142
The processing and evaluation of news content on social media is influenced by peer-user commentary
Boot, A. B., Dijkstra, K., & Zwaan, R. A. (2021) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-021-00889-5 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Nadeau, R., Cloutier, E., & Guay, J.-H.
- Venue
- International Political Science Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1993-04
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 203-213
- ISSN
- 0192-5121 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-373X
- OpenAlex
- W2145148619
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
