Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36894611›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

The role of position in consensus dynamics of polarizable networks.

Helge Giese, Felix Gaisbauer, Nico Gradwohl, Ariana Strandburg-Peshkin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Helge GieseCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. helge.giese@charite.de.
Felix GaisbauerUniversity of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
Nico GradwohlUniversity of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
Ariana Strandburg-PeshkinUniversity of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft EXC 2117-422037984
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID36894611
PMCPMC9998643

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.