Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30835742›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Algorithmic bias amplifies opinion fragmentation and polarization: A bounded confidence model.

Alina Sîrbu, Dino Pedreschi, Fosca Giannotti, János Kertész

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Testing the impact of fallacies and contrarian claims in climate change misinformation.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alina SîrbuDepartment of Computer Science, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3947-7143
Dino PedreschiDepartment of Computer Science, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Fosca GiannottiIstituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" - CNR, Pisa, Italy.
János KertészCenter for Network Science, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-4957-5406

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The flow of information reaching us via the online media platforms is optimized not by the information content or relevance but by popularity and proximity to the target. This is typically performed in order to maximise platform usage. As a side effect, this introduces an algorithmic bias that is believed to enhance fragmentation and polarization of the societal debate. To study this phenomenon, we modify the well-known continuous opinion dynamics model of bounded confidence in order to account for the algorithmic bias and investigate its consequences. In the simplest version of the original model the pairs of discussion participants are chosen at random and their opinions get closer to each other if they are within a fixed tolerance level. We modify the selection rule of the discussion partners: there is an enhanced probability to choose individuals whose opinions are already close to each other, thus mimicking the behavior of online media which suggest interaction with similar peers. As a result we observe: a) an increased tendency towards opinion fragmentation, which emerges also in conditions where the original model would predict consensus, b) increased polarisation of opinions and c) a dramatic slowing down of the speed at which the convergence at the asymptotic state is reached, which makes the system highly unstable. Fragmentation and polarization are augmented by a fragmented initial population.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsComputer SimulationModels, TheoreticalPublic OpinionHumansProbability

Identifiers

PMID30835742
PMCPMC6400382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.