ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
Conformity to popular, not average, opinions: Models, data, and evolution.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In assessing how individuals in a network estimate a quantity, it is often assumed that they take an average or weighted average of the estimates of others they observe, as in the French-DeGroot learning model. However, individuals may actually copy clusters of similar opinions among their peers, a process that we call conformity. For example, if ten individuals estimate a quantity to be 0 and ten individuals guess 100, then although the average estimate is 50, one may conform by choosing either 0 or 100. Here, we a) extend a recent model of conformity to include both personal beliefs and social information, b) evaluate this model and two models of French-DeGroot averaging on human decision-making data, and c) simulate evolutionary dynamics of each model under different kinds of population structure, including static and adaptive networks. Under many of the conditions we analyze, the conformity model provides a significantly better fit to the data than either of the French-DeGroot models. In addition, evolutionary simulations reveal considerable differences among the models; for example, compared to the French-DeGroot models, the conformity model can produce faster shifts in populations toward "extreme" opinions-where individuals' estimates of a quantity are either very large or very small-and can reduce individuals' average estimation accuracy. These findings have implications for research on consensus formation, polarization, and wisdom of crowds.
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.