ArticleScientific reports2017
Modeling confirmation bias and polarization.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 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
47 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Confidence in Prior Attitudes, Social Tag Popularity, and Source Credibility Shape Confirmation Bias Toward Antidepressants and Psychotherapy in a Representative German Sample: Randomized Controlled Web-Based Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Trial
- Investigating the impact of narrativity on the congeniality bias.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- The role of theory of mind, group norms and intentionality in children's and adolescents' moral evaluations of a misinformer.The British journal of developmental psychology · 2025Article
- In the blink of an eye: behavioural correlates of the confirmation bias effect.Cognitive processing · 2025Article
- From Individual Expression to Group Polarization: A Study on Twitter's Emotional Diffusion Patterns in the German Election.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Intrinsic social media literacy: a public relations strategy addressing problematic social media use among teenagers globally.Cogent social sciences · 2025Review
- Social polarization promoted by sparse higher-order interactions.Communications physics · 2025Article
- A multilevel network approach to revealing patterns of online political selective exposure.PloS one · 2025Article
- Effects of dehumanization and disgust-eliciting language on attitudes toward immigration: a sentiment analysis of Twitter data.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2025Article
- Echo chamber formation sharpened by priority users.iScience · 2024Article
- A common factor underlying individual differences in confirmation bias.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Moderate confirmation bias enhances decision-making in groups of reinforcement-learning agents.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- A theoretical framework for polarization as the gradual fragmentation of a divided society.Communications psychology · 2024Review
- Success-driven opinion formation determines social tensions.iScience · 2024Article
- The roots of polarization in the individual reward system.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Used like Pawns or Treated like Kings? How Narratives around Racehorse Welfare in the 2023 Grand National May Affect Public Acceptance: An Informed Commentary.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- A Holistic Review of Cyber-Physical-Social Systems: New Directions and Opportunities.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Voter-like Dynamics with Conflicting Preferences on Modular Networks.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Online users tend to select claims that adhere to their system of beliefs and to ignore dissenting information. Confirmation bias, indeed, plays a pivotal role in viral phenomena. Furthermore, the wide availability of content on the web fosters the aggregation of likeminded people where debates tend to enforce group polarization. Such a configuration might alter the public debate and thus the formation of the public opinion. In this paper we provide a mathematical model to study online social debates and the related polarization dynamics. We assume the basic updating rule of the Bounded Confidence Model (BCM) and we develop two variations a) the Rewire with Bounded Confidence Model (RBCM), in which discordant links are broken until convergence is reached; and b) the Unbounded Confidence Model, under which the interaction among discordant pairs of users is allowed even with a negative feedback, either with the rewiring step (RUCM) or without it (UCM). From numerical simulations we find that the new models (UCM and RUCM), unlike the BCM, are able to explain the coexistence of two stable final opinions, often observed in reality. Lastly, we present a mean field approximation of the newly introduced models.
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.