ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2016
Estimating peer effects in networks with peer encouragement designs.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tendencies toward triadic closure: Field experimental evidence.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Heterogeneous peer effects of college roommates on academic performance.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Heuristics in vaccination Decision-Making for newly developed Vaccines: Understanding the public's imitative behavior.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Social media feedback and extreme opinion expression.PloS one · 2023Article
- Interdependent program evaluation: Geographic and social spillovers in COVID-19 closures and reopenings in the United States.Science advances · 2021Article
- A computational reward learning account of social media engagement.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Studying human attention on the Internet.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- Use of a controlled experiment and computational models to measure the impact of sequential peer exposures on decision making.PloS one · 2020Article
- A Trial of Student Self-Sponsored Peer-to-Peer Lending Based on Credit Evaluation Using Big Data Analysis.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2019Article
- Affective stimuli in behavioural interventions soliciting for health check-up services and the service users' socioeconomic statuses: a study at JapaneseJournal of epidemiology and community health · 2018Article
- Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
- Drawing causal inference from Big Data.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer effects, in which the behavior of an individual is affected by the behavior of their peers, are central to social science. Because peer effects are often confounded with homophily and common external causes, recent work has used randomized experiments to estimate effects of specific peer behaviors. These experiments have often relied on the experimenter being able to randomly modulate mechanisms by which peer behavior is transmitted to a focal individual. We describe experimental designs that instead randomly assign individuals' peers to encouragements to behaviors that directly affect those individuals. We illustrate this method with a large peer encouragement design on Facebook for estimating the effects of receiving feedback from peers on posts shared by focal individuals. We find evidence for substantial effects of receiving marginal feedback on multiple behaviors, including giving feedback to others and continued posting. These findings provide experimental evidence for the role of behaviors directed at specific individuals in the adoption and continued use of communication technologies. In comparison, observational estimates differ substantially, both underestimating and overestimating effects, suggesting that researchers and policy makers should be cautious in relying on them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.