Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38660596›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2024

Noise and opinion dynamics: how ambiguity promotes pro-majority consensus in the presence of confirmation bias.

Peter Steiglechner, Marijn A Keijzer, Paul E Smaldino, Deyshawn Moser, Agostino Merico

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Peter SteiglechnerLeibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Bremen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1937-5983
Marijn A KeijzerInstitute for Advanced Study in Toulouse, Toulouse School of Economics, Toulouse, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7585-062X
Paul E SmaldinoDepartment of Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California Merced, Merced, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7133-5620
Deyshawn MoserLeibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Bremen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1789-9393
Agostino MericoLeibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Bremen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8095-8056

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

agent-based modelbounded confidenceclimate changecomputational social sciencenoiseopinion formation

Identifiers

PMID38660596
PMCPMC11040247

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.