ArticleScience advances2020
Wise or mad crowds? The cognitive mechanisms underlying information cascades.
Article in Science advances, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 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
39 citing papers in PubMed.
- Moral and perceptual conflict processing are implemented by distinct brain activation and functional connectivity patterns.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Payoff selectivity drives collective intelligence during dynamic resource tracking in humans.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Selective observation following betrayal shapes the social inference landscape.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Neural and behavioral dynamics of (mis)alignment with AI versus humans in risky decision revision.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2026Article
- Enhancing the Cohesion and Influence of Minority Opinions Through Clustering: A Social Network Experiment.PsyCh journal · 2025Article
- Neural correlates of Bayesian social belief updating in the medial prefrontal cortex.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- Better and faster decisions by larger fish shoals in the wild.Science advances · 2025Article
- Individual differences in speed-accuracy trade-off influence social decision-making in dyads.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Does the risk-taking behaviour of a group influence individual risk-taking behaviour?Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Adaptive mechanisms of social and asocial learning in immersive collective foraging.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Heterogeneous update processes shape information cascades in social networks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Collective decision making by embodied neural agents.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Article
- Deliberation during online bargaining reveals strategic information.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Agents seeking long-term access to the wisdom of the crowd reduce immediate decision-making accuracy.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Humans flexibly integrate social information despite interindividual differences in reward.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Moderate confirmation bias enhances decision-making in groups of reinforcement-learning agents.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Fast decisions reflect biases; slow decisions do not.Physical review. E · 2024Article
- A Cognitive Computational Approach to Social and Collective Decision-Making.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2024Article
- The effect of macroscopic herd inputs on individual investment behaviour.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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
Whether getting vaccinated, buying stocks, or crossing streets, people rarely make decisions alone. Rather, multiple people decide sequentially, setting the stage for information cascades whereby early-deciding individuals can influence others' choices. To understand how information cascades through social systems, it is essential to capture the dynamics of the decision-making process. We introduce the social drift-diffusion model to capture these dynamics. We tested our model using a sequential choice task. The model was able to recover the dynamics of the social decision-making process, accurately capturing how individuals integrate personal and social information dynamically over time and when their decisions were timed. Our results show the importance of the interrelationships between accuracy, confidence, and response time in shaping the quality of information cascades. The model reveals the importance of capturing the dynamics of decision processes to understand how information cascades in social systems, paving the way for applications in other social systems.
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.