ArticleScientific reports2023
The role of position in consensus dynamics of polarizable networks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
Communication constraints often complicate group decision-making. In this experiment, we investigate how the network position of opinionated group members determines both the speed and the outcome of group consensus in 7-member communication networks susceptible to polarization. To this end, we implemented an online version of a color coordination task within experimentally controlled communication networks. In 72 networks, one individual was incentivized to prefer one of two options. In 156 networks, two individuals were incentivized to prefer conflicting options. The network positions of incentivized individuals were varied. In networks with a single incentivized individual, network position played no significant role in either the speed or outcome of consensus decisions. For conflicts, the incentivized individual with more neighbors was more likely to sway the group to their preferred outcome. Furthermore, consensus emerged more slowly when the opponents had the same number of neighbors, but could not see each other's votes directly. These results suggest that the visibility of an opinion is key to wielding group influence, and that specific structures are sufficient to run communication networks into polarization, hindering a speedy consensus.
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.