ArticlePloS one2020
Noise induced unanimity and disorder in opinion formation.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Democratic Thwarting of Majority Rule in Opinion Dynamics: 1. Unavowed Prejudices Versus Contrarians.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Noise and opinion dynamics: how ambiguity promotes pro-majority consensus in the presence of confirmation bias.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Unanimity, Coexistence, and Rigidity: Three Sides of Polarization.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Vanishing Opinions in Latané Model of Opinion Formation.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Consensus, Polarization and Hysteresis in the Three-State NoisyEntropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Understanding the Nature of the Long-Range Memory Phenomenon in Socioeconomic Systems.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We propose an opinion dynamics model based on Latané's social impact theory. Actors in this model are heterogeneous and, in addition to opinions, are characterised by their varying levels of persuasion and support. The model is tested for two and three initial opinions randomly distributed among actors. We examine how the noise (randomness of behaviour) and the flow of information among actors affect the formation and spread of opinions. Our main research involves the process of opinion formation and finding phases of the system in terms of parameters describing noise and flow of the information for two and three opinions available in the system. The results show that opinion formation and spread are influenced by both (i) flow of information among actors (effective range of interactions among actors) and (ii) noise (randomness in adopting opinions). The noise not only leads to opinions disorder but also it promotes consensus under certain conditions. In disordered phase and when the exchange of information is spatially effectively limited, various faces of disorder are observed, including system states, where the signatures of self-organised criticality manifest themselves as scale-free probability distribution function of cluster sizes. Then increase of noise level leads system to disordered random state. The critical noise level above which histograms of opinion clusters' sizes loose their scale-free character increases with increase of the easy of information flow.
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.