Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38392355›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Modeling Misinformation Spread in a Bounded Confidence Model: A Simulation Study.

Yujia Wu, Peng Guo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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

2 authors.

Yujia WuSchool of Management, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an 710021, China.
Peng GuoSchool of Management, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an 710021, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Misinformation has posed significant threats to all aspects of people's lives. One of the most active areas of research in misinformation examines how individuals are misinformed. In this paper, we study how and to what extent agents are misinformed in an extended bounded confidence model, which consists of three parts: (i) online selective neighbors whose opinions differ from their own but not by more than a certain confidence level; (ii) offline neighbors, in a Watts-Strogatz small-world network, whom an agent has to communicate with even though their opinions are far different from their own; and (iii) a Bayesian analysis. Furthermore, we introduce two types of epistemically irresponsible agents: agents who hide their honest opinions and focus on disseminating misinformation and agents who ignore the messages received and follow the crowd mindlessly. Simulations show that, in an environment with only online selective neighbors, the misinforming is more successful with broader confidence intervals. Having offline neighbors contributes to being cautious of misinformation, while employing a Bayesian analysis helps in discovering the truth. Moreover, the agents who are only willing to listen to the majority, regardless of the truth, unwittingly help to bring about the success of misinformation attempts, and they themselves are, of course, misled to a greater extent.

Indexed as

bounded confidenceheterogeneitymisinformationopinion dynamicssmall-world networks

Identifiers

PMID38392355
PMCPMC10887914

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.