ArticleRoyal Society open science2024
Noise and opinion dynamics: how ambiguity promotes pro-majority consensus in the presence of confirmation bias.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Co-evolution of groups and opinions in an agent-based model.PloS one · 2025Article
- Noise and opinion dynamics: how ambiguity promotes pro-majority consensus in the presence of confirmation bias.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Opinion dynamics are affected by cognitive biases and noise. While mathematical models have focused extensively on biases, we still know surprisingly little about how noise shapes opinion patterns. Here, we use an agent-based opinion dynamics model to investigate the interplay between confirmation bias-represented as bounded confidence-and different types of noise. After analysing where noise can enter social interaction, we propose a type of noise that has not been discussed so far, ambiguity noise. While previously considered types of noise acted on agents either before, after or independent of social interaction, ambiguity noise acts on communicated messages, assuming that socially transmitted opinions are inherently noisy. We find that noise can induce agreement when confirmation bias is moderate, but different types of noise require quite different conditions for this effect to occur. An application of our model to the climate change debate shows that at just the right mix of confirmation bias and ambiguity noise, opinions tend to converge to high levels of climate change concern. This result is not observed with the other types. Our findings highlight the importance of considering and distinguishing between the various types of noise and the unique role of ambiguity in opinion formation.
Indexed as
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.