Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35138900›Full record

ArticleScience advances2022

Political coherence and certainty as drivers of interpersonal liking over and above similarity.

Federico Zimmerman, Gerry Garbulsky, Dan Ariely, Mariano Sigman, Joaquin Navajas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Federico ZimmermanLaboratorio de Neurociencia, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Av. Figueroa Alcorta 7350, Buenos Aires C1428BCW, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0002-4632-978X
Gerry GarbulskyTED, Araoz 727, Buenos Aires C1414DPO, Argentina.
Dan ArielyThe Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, 100 Fuqua Drive, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Mariano SigmanLaboratorio de Neurociencia, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Av. Figueroa Alcorta 7350, Buenos Aires C1428BCW, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0003-0589-0033
Joaquin NavajasLaboratorio de Neurociencia, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Av. Figueroa Alcorta 7350, Buenos Aires C1428BCW, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0001-8765-037X
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas · ARDuke University · USUniversidad Torcuato Di Tella · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Affective polarization and political segregation have become a serious threat to democratic societies. One standard explanation for these phenomena is that people like and prefer interacting with similar others. However, similarity may not be the only driver of interpersonal liking in the political domain, and other factors, yet to be uncovered, could play an important role. Here, we hypothesized that beyond the effect of similarity, people show greater preference for individuals with politically coherent and confident opinions. To test this idea, we performed two behavioral studies consisting of one-shot face-to-face pairwise interactions. We found that people with ambiguous or ambivalent views were nonreciprocally attracted to confident and coherent ingroups. A third experimental study confirmed that politically coherent and confident profiles are rated as more attractive than targets with ambiguous or ambivalent opinions. Overall, these findings unfold the key drivers of the affability between people who discuss politics.

Identifiers

PMID35138900
PMCPMC8827732
OpenAlexW4211153540

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.