Opinion Homogenization and Polarization

doi:10.1017/9781009002042.024

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

Elizaveta Konovalova and

Edited by

Peter Juslin and

Klaus Fiedler: Affiliation:
Universität Heidelberg
Peter Juslin: Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Jerker Denrell: Affiliation:
University of Warwick

Book contents

Get access

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.

Keywords

sampling opinion polarization reinforcement learning social feedback

Type: Chapter
Information: Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making , pp. 436 - 464

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009002042.024 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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:10.2307/2118364CrossRef Google 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: 10.1086/261849CrossRef Google 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://www.cambridge.org/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.2015.2354CrossRef Google 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.2010.532261CrossRef Google Scholar

Friedkin, N. E. (1999). Choice shift and group polarization. American Sociological Review, 64(6), 856. doi: 10.2307/2657407CrossRef Google 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.html Google 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.3009791 Google 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: 10.1145/3308558.3313693CrossRef Google 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. www.cambridge.org/core/terms.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595Downloadedfromh doi: 10.1017/S1537592714001595CrossRef Google 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/nfs038CrossRef Google 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/h0027568CrossRef Google 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.97.3.362CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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/pspa0000231 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Book contents

Chapter 19 - Opinion Homogenization and Polarization

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive