ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2021
Ideology, communication and polarization.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Escape from fraught states in a coordination game.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- The spread of technological innovations: effects of psychology, culture and policy interventions.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Rational inference strategies and the genesis of polarization and extremism.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Inequality between identity groups and social unrest.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2022Article
- Authority matters: propaganda and the coevolution of behaviour and attitudes.Evolutionary human sciences · 2022Article
- Small steps for mankind: Modeling the emergence of cumulative culture from joint active inference communication.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2022Article
- The cognitive and perceptual correlates of ideological attitudes: a data-driven approach.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Bringing political psychology into the study of populism.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Computational and neurocognitive approaches to the political brain: key insights and future avenues for political neuroscience.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Coevolution of actions, personal norms and beliefs about others in social dilemmas.Evolutionary human sciences · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ideologically committed minds form the basis of political polarization, but ideologically guided communication can further entrench and exacerbate polarization depending on the structures of ideologies and social network dynamics on which cognition and communication operate. Combining a well-established connectionist model of cognition and a well-validated computational model of social influence dynamics on social networks, we develop a new model of ideological cognition and communication on dynamic social networks and explore its implications for ideological political discourse. In particular, we explicitly model ideologically filtered interpretation of social information, ideological commitment to initial opinion, and communication on dynamically evolving social networks, and examine how these factors combine to generate ideologically divergent and polarized political discourse. The results show that ideological interpretation and commitment tend towards polarized discourse. Nonetheless, communication and social network dynamics accelerate and amplify polarization. Furthermore, when agents sever social ties with those that disagree with them (i.e. structure their social networks by homophily), even non-ideological agents may form an echo chamber and form a cluster of opinions that resemble an ideological group. This article is part of the theme issue 'The political brain: neurocognitive and computational mechanisms'.
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.