ArticleRoyal Society open science2018
Opinion formation on dynamic networks: identifying conditions for the emergence of partisan echo chambers.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying and investigating emergent behaviour in neural systems.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- How out-group animosity can shape partisan divisions: A model of affective polarization.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Echo chamber formation sharpened by priority users.iScience · 2024Article
- Article
- Success-driven opinion formation determines social tensions.iScience · 2024Article
- Containing misinformation: Modeling spatial games of fake news.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Article
- A game theoretical model for the stimulation of public cooperation in environmental collaborative governance.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Opinion dynamics in social networks under competition: the role of influencing factors in consensus-reaching.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Troll and divide: the language of online polarization.PNAS nexus · 2022Article
- Article
- Dense and influential core promotion of daily viral information spread in political echo chambers.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Social influence and interaction bias can drive emergent behavioural specialization and modular social networks across systems.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2020Article
- Consensus and polarization in competing complex contagion processes.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern political interaction is characterized by strong partisanship and a lack of interest in information sharing and agreement across party lines. It remains largely unclear how such partisan echo chambers arise and how they coevolve with opinion formation. Here, we explore the emergence of these structures through the lens of coevolutionary games. In our model, the payoff of an individual is determined jointly by the magnitude of their opinion, their degree of conformity with their social neighbours and the benefit of having social connections. Each individual can simultaneously adjust their opinion and the weights of their social connections. We present and validate the conditions for the emergence of partisan echo chambers, characterizing the transition from cohesive communities with a consensus to divisive networks with splitting opinions. Moreover, we apply our model to voting records of the US House of Representatives over a timespan of decades to understand the influence of underlying psychological and social factors on increasing partisanship in recent years. Our work helps elucidate how the division of today has come to be and how cohesion and unity could otherwise be attained on a variety of political and social issues.
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.