ArticleScientific reports2023
Agent-based null models for examining experimental social interaction 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.
- A primer on politicization, polarization, radicalization, and activation and their implications for democracy in times of rapid technological change.The British journal of social psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We consider the analysis of temporal data arising from online interactive social experiments, which is complicated by the fact that classical independence assumptions about the observations are not satisfied. Therefore, we propose an approach that compares the output of a fitted (linear) model from the observed interaction data to that generated by an assumed agent-based null model. This allows us to discover, for example, the extent to which the structure of social interactions differs from that of random interactions. Moreover, we provide network visualisations that identify the extent of ingroup favouritism and reciprocity as well as particular individuals whose behaviour differs markedly from the norm. We specifically consider experimental data collected via the novel Virtual Interaction APPLication (VIAPPL). We find that ingroup favouritism and reciprocity are present in social interactions observed on this platform, and that these behaviours strengthen over time. Note that, while our proposed methodology was developed with VIAPPL in mind, its potential usage extends to any type of social interaction data.
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.