Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39632953›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Bringing leaders of network subgroups closer together does not facilitate consensus.

Matthew I Jones, Nicholas A Christakis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Matthew I JonesYale Institute for Network Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. matt.jones@yale.edu.
Nicholas A ChristakisYale Institute for Network Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Consensus formation is a complex process, particularly in networked groups. When individuals are incentivized to dig in and refuse to compromise, leaders may be essential to guiding the group to consensus. Specifically, the relative geodesic position of leaders could be important for reaching consensus. Separately, groups searching for consensus can be confounded by noisy signals in which individuals are given false information about the actions of their fellow group members. We tested the effects of the geodesic distance between leaders (geodesic distance ranging from 1 to 4) and of noise (noise levels at 0%, 5%, and 10%) by recruiting participants (N = 3,456) for a set of experiments (n = 216 groups). We find that noise makes groups less likely to reach consensus, and the groups that do reach consensus take longer to find it. We find that leadership changes the behavior of both leaders and followers in important ways (for instance, being labeled a leader makes people more likely to 'go with the flow'). However, we find no evidence that the geodesic distance between leaders is a significant factor in the probability of reaching consensus. While other network properties of leaders undoubtedly affect consensus formation, the distance between leaders in network subgroups appears not to matter.

Identifiers

PMID39632953
PMCPMC11618600

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.