Book contents
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Historical Review of Sampling Perspectives and Major Paradigms
- Part II Sampling Mechanisms
- Part III Consequences of Selective Sampling
- Part IV Truncation and Stopping Rules
- Part V Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments
- Chapter 16 Heuristic Social Sampling
- Chapter 17 Social Sampling for Judgments and Predictions of Societal Trends
- Chapter 18 Group-Motivated Sampling
- Chapter 19 Opinion Homogenization and Polarization
- Part VI Computational Approaches
- Index
- References
Chapter 19 - Opinion Homogenization and Polarization
Three Sampling Models
from Part V - Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 June 2023
Book contents
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Historical Review of Sampling Perspectives and Major Paradigms
- Part II Sampling Mechanisms
- Part III Consequences of Selective Sampling
- Part IV Truncation and Stopping Rules
- Part V Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments
- Chapter 16 Heuristic Social Sampling
- Chapter 17 Social Sampling for Judgments and Predictions of Societal Trends
- Chapter 18 Group-Motivated Sampling
- Chapter 19 Opinion Homogenization and Polarization
- Part VI Computational Approaches
- Index
- References
Summary
We describe three sampling models that aim to cast light on how some design features of social media platforms systematically affect judgments of their users. We specify the micro-mechanisms of belief formation and interactions and explore their macro implications such as opinion polarization. Each model focuses on a specific aspect of platform-mediated social interactions: how popularity creates additional exposure to contrarian arguments; how differences in popularity make an agent more likely to hear particularly persuasive arguments in support of popular options; and how opinions in favor of popular options are reinforced through social feedback. We show that these mechanisms lead to self-reinforcing dynamics that can result in local opinion homogenization and between-group polarization. Unlike nonsampling-based approaches, our focus does not lie in peculiarities of information processing such as motivated cognition but instead emphasizes how structural features of the learning environment contribute to opinion homogenization and polarization.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making , pp. 436 - 464Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Baldassarri, D., & Bearman, P. (2007). Dynamics of political polarization. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 784–811. doi: 10.1177/000312240707200507Google Scholar
Banerjee, A. V. (1992, 8). A simple model of herd behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(3), 797–817. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-lookup/doi/10.2307/2118364 doi:10.2307/2118364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberá, P., Casas, A., & Nagler, J., et al. (2019, 11). Who leads? Who follows? Measuring issue attention and agenda setting by legislators and the mass public using social media data. American Political Science Review, 113(4), 883–901. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000352 doi: 10.1017/S0003055419000352Google Scholar
Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992, 10). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100(5), 992–1026. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/261849 doi: 10.1086/261849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1991, 10). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. doi: 10.1177/0146167291175001Google Scholar
Broockman, D. E., & Skovron, C. (2018, 8). Bias in perceptions of public opinion among political elites. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 542–563. https://multimediafluids.uam.elogim.com/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/bias-in doi: 10.1017/S0003055418000011Google Scholar
Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1977). Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(4), 315–332. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(77)90002-6Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, G., Chen, B.-C., & Agarwal, D. (2017). Social incentive optimization in online social networks. In Proceedings of the tenth acm international conference on web search and data mining (pp. 547–556).Google Scholar
DeGroot, M. H. (1974). Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(345), 118–121. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1974.10480137Google Scholar
Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112(4). doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.951Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & Le Mens, G. (2007). Interdependent sampling and social influence. Psychological Review, 114(2), 398–422. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.398Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & Le Mens, G. (2017, 2). Information sampling, belief synchronization, and collective illusions. Management Science, 63(2), 528–547. http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2354 doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Densley, J., & Peterson, J. (2018, 2). Groups aggression (Vol. 19). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.031Google Scholar
Eckles, D., Kizilcec, R. F., & Bakshy, E. (2016). Estimating peer effects in networks with peer encouragement designs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27), 7316–7322.Google Scholar
Flache, A., & Macy, M. W. (2011). Small worlds and cultural polarization. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 35(1–3), 146–176. doi: 10.1080/0022250X.2010.532261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedkin, N. E. (1999). Choice shift and group polarization. American Sociological Review, 64(6), 856. doi: 10.2307/2657407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2012, 12). Social sampling explains apparent biases in judgments of social environments. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1515–1523. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797612445313 doi: 10.1177/0956797612445313Google Scholar
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2018, 4). A sampling model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 125(3), 363–390. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2018-20732-002.htmlGoogle Scholar
Garz, M., Sood, G., Stone, D. F., & Wallace, J. (2019). Is there within-outlet demand for media slant? Evidence from US presidential campaign news. Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3009791Google Scholar
Germano, F., Gómez, V., & Le Mens, G. (2019). The few-get-richer: A surprising consequence of popularity-based rankings. In The web conference 2019: Proceedings of the world wide web conference, www 2019. doi: 10.1145/3308558.3313693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014, 9). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581. multimediafluids.uam.elogim.com/core/terms.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595Downloadedfromh doi: 10.1017/S1537592714001595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization. A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6). doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3). doi: 10.1093/poq/nfs038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latané, B., Nowak, A., & Liu, J. H. (1994). Measuring emergent social phenomena: Dynamism, polarization, and clustering as order parameters of social systems. Behavioral Science, 39(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830390102Google Scholar
Mäs, M., & Flache, A. (2013). Differentiation without distancing: Explaining bi-polarization of opinions without negative influence. PLoS ONE, 8(11), e74516. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074516Google Scholar
McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., David, B., & Wetherell, M. S. (1992). Group polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 1–19. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00952.xGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2). doi: 10.1037/h0027568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4). doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602Google Scholar
Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latané, B. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97(3). doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2015, 1). Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine, 33(3), 459–464. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017Google Scholar
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986). The repulsion hypothesis: On the nondevelopment of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1156–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schöll, N., Gallego, A., & Le Mens, G. (2021). Politician–citizen interactions and dynamic representation: Evidence from Twitter. Barcelona: Barcelona School of Economics Working Paper no. 1238.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1515/9781400890521Google Scholar
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006, 7). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1540 5907.2006.00214.x doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.xGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971, 4). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420010202Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The law of effect. American Journal of Psychology, 39(1–4), 212–222.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., Wetherell, M. S., & Hogg, M. A. (1989). Referent informational influence and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28(2), 135–147. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00855.xGoogle Scholar
Woiczyk, T. K. A., & Le Mens, G. (2021). Evaluating categories from experience: The simple averaging heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(4), 747–773. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000231CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.