Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40498808›Full record

ArticlePsychological science2025

How Convincing Is a Crowd? Quantifying the Persuasiveness of a Consensus for Different Individuals and Types of Claims.

Manikya Alister, Keith Ransom, Saoirse Connor Desai, Ee Von Soh, Brett Hayes, Andrew Perfors

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Manikya AlisterUniversity of Melbourne, School of Psychological Sciences.ORCID 0000-0001-8630-9938
Keith RansomUniversity of Adelaide, School of Computer and Mathematical Sciences.ORCID 0000-0001-5423-6455
Saoirse Connor DesaiUniversity of Technology Sydney, Graduate School of Health.ORCID 0000-0001-7225-8973
Ee Von SohUniversity of Melbourne, School of Psychological Sciences.
Brett HayesUniversity of New South Wales, School of Psychology.ORCID 0000-0003-1415-0088
Andrew PerforsUniversity of Melbourne, School of Psychological Sciences.

Funding

Non-US Government Research Support type
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A powerful cue when reasoning is whether an apparent consensus has been reached. However, we do not yet know how the strength of this cue varies between different individuals and types of claims. In the current study (

Indexed as

ConsensusPersuasive CommunicationAdultCuesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adultconsensusindividual differencespersuasionsocial reasoningsource independence

Identifiers

PMID40498808
PMCPMC13428892

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.