Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-13T04:23:08.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part V - Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2023

Edited by
Klaus Fiedler ,
Peter Juslin  and
Jerker Denrell
Klaus Fiedler
Affiliation:
Universität Heidelberg
Peter Juslin
Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Jerker Denrell
Affiliation:
University of Warwick
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making , pp. 357 - 464
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. J. (2014). The atomic components of thought. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bond, C. F., & Brockett, D. R. (1987). A social context-personality index theory of memory for acquaintances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1110–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, C. F., Jones, R. L., & Weintraub, D. L. (1985). On the unconstrained recall of acquaintances: A sampling-traversal model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2), 327–337.Google Scholar
Brewer, D. D. (1995). Patterns in the recall of persons in a department of a formal organization. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 5, 255–284.Google Scholar
Bröder, A., & Schiffer, S. (2003). Take the best versus simultaneous feature matching: Probabilistic inferences from memory and effects of representation format. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(2), 277–293.Google Scholar
Brown, G. D., Gardner, J., Oswald, A. J., & Qian, J. (2008). Does wage rank affect employees’ well-being? Industrial Relations, 47(3), 355–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review, 51(4), 661–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawtry, R. J., Sutton, R. M., & Sibley, C. G. (2015). Why wealthier people think people are wealthier, and why it matters: From social sampling to attitudes to redistribution. Psychological Science, 26(9), 1389–1400.Google Scholar
Dougherty, M. R., Gettys, C. F., & Ogden, E. E. (1999). Minerva-DM: A memory processes model for judgments of likelihood. Psychological Review, 106(1), 180–209.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I., Arnaboldi, V., Conti, M., & Passarella, A. (2015). The structure of online social networks mirrors those in the offline world. Social Networks, 43, 39–47.Google Scholar
Einhorn, H. J. (1970). The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 73(3), 221–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epstein, J. M. (2001). Learning to be thoughtless: Social norms and individual computation. Computational Economics, 18(1), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., & Juslin, P. (Eds.). (2006). Information sampling and adaptive cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (1995). Social schemata for remembering people: Relationships and person attributes in free recall of acquaintances. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 5(4), 305–324.Google Scholar
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2012). Social sampling explains apparent biases in judgments of social environments. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1515–1523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2018). A sampling model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 125(3), 363–390.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Hertwig, R., & Pachur, T. (Eds.). (2011). Heuristics: The foundations of adaptive behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heathcote, A., Brown, S. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2015). An introduction to good practices in cognitive modeling. In Forstmann, B. U. & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (Eds.), An introduction to model-based cognitive neuroscience (pp. 25–48). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Hecht, M., Pachur, T. & Schulze, C. (2022). Does social sampling differ between online and offline contacts? A computational modeling analysis. In J. Culbertson, A. Perfors, H. Rabagliati, & V. Ramenzoni (Eds.), Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 319–325). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Henrich, N., & Henrich, J. P. (2007). Why humans cooperate: A cultural and evolutionary explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., Pachur, T., & Kurzenhäuser, S. (2005). Judgments of risk frequencies: Tests of possible cognitive mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(4), 621–642.Google ScholarPubMed
Hewstone, M., & Lord, C. G. (1998). Intergroup behavior: The role of typicality. In Sedikides, C., Schopler, J., Insko, C. A., & Insko, C. (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 367–392). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hill, R. A., & Dunbar, R. I. (2003). Social network size in humans. Human Nature, 14(1), 53–72.Google Scholar
Hills, T. T. (2019). The dark side of information proliferation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 323–330.Google Scholar
Hills, T. T., & Pachur, T. (2012(d)). Dynamic search and working memory in social recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(1), 218–228.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(6), 551–578.Google Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, M. E. (2005). Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemporary Physics, 46(5), 323–351.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 39–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., & Rieskamp, J. (2013). Intuitive judgments of social statistics: How exhaustive does sampling need to be? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1059–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., & Steinmann, F. (2012). How do people judge risks: Availability heuristic, affect heuristic, or both? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 314–330.Google Scholar
Pachur, T., Schooler, L. J., & Stevens, J. R. (2014). We’ll meet again: Revealing distributional and temporal patterns of social contact. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e86081.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitt, M. A., & Myung, I. J. (2002). When a good fit can be bad. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(10), 421–425.Google Scholar
Rips, L. J. (1975). Inductive judgments about natural categories. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(6), 665–681.Google Scholar
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, M., & Schiller, D. (2018). Navigating social space. Neuron, 100(2), 476–489.Google Scholar
Schulze, C., Hertwig, R., & Pachur, T. (2021). Who you know is what you know: Modeling boundedly rational social sampling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(2), 221–241.Google Scholar
Schulze, C., Pachur, T., & Hertwig, R. (2017). How does instance-based inference about event frequencies develop? An analysis with a computational process model. In Gunzelmann, G., Howes, A., Tenbrink, T., & Davelaar, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1053–1058).Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138.Google Scholar
Smith, E. R., & Zarate, M. A. (1992). Exemplar-based model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 99(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
Todd, P. M., Gigerenzer, G., & the ABC Research Group. (2012). Ecological rationality: Intelligence in the world. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troyer, A. K., Moscovitch, M., Winocur, G., Alexander, M. P., & Stuss, D. (1998). Clustering and switching on verbal fluency: The effects of focal frontal-and temporal-lobe lesions. Neuropsychologia, 36(6), 499–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tunçgenç, B., El Zein, M., & Sulik, J., et al. (2021). Social influence matters: We follow pandemic guidelines most when our close circle does. British Journal of Psychology, 112, 763–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Bos, W., & Hertwig, R. (2017). Adolescents display distinctive tolerance to ambiguity and to uncertainty during risky decision making. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wald, A. (1950). Statistical decision functions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wood, A. M., Brown, G. D., & Maltby, J. (2012). Social norm influences on evaluations of the risks associated with alcohol consumption: Applying the rank-based decision by sampling model to health judgments. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 47(1), 57–62.Google Scholar

References

Albert, R., & Barabási, A.-L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74(1), 47–97. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.47Google Scholar
Alicke, M. D., & Govorun, O. (2005). The better-than-average effect. In Alicke, M. D., Dunning, D., & Krueger, J. I. (Eds.), Studies in self and identity: The self in social judgment. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J., & Vredenburg, D. S. (1995). Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5), 804–825. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.804Google Scholar
Alipourfard, N., Nettasinghe, B., Abeliuk, A., Krishnamurthy, V., & Lerman, K. (2020). Friendship paradox biases perceptions in directed networks. Nature Communications, 11(1), 707. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14394-xGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barton, A. H. (1958). Asking the embarrassing question. Public Opinion Quarterly, 22(1), 67–68. https://doi.org/10.1086/266761Google Scholar
Brown, G. D. A., Wood, A. M., Ogden, R. S., & Maltby, J. (2015). Do student evaluations of university reflect inaccurate beliefs or actual experience? A relative rank model. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1827CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruine de Bruin, W., Downs, J. S., Murray, P., & Fischhoff, B. (2010). Can female adolescents tell whether they will test positive for chlamydia infection? Medical Decision Making, 30(2), 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X09343308Google Scholar
Bruine de Bruin, W., Galesic, M., & Bååth, R., et al. (2022). Asking about social circles improves election predictions even with many political parties. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 34(1), edac006. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edac006Google Scholar
Bruine de Bruin, W., Galesic, M., Parker, A. M., & Vardavas, R. (2020). The role of social circle perceptions in “False Consensus” about population statistics: Evidence from a national flu survey. Medical Decision Making, 40(2), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X20904960Google Scholar
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Can adolescents predict significant life events? Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(2), 208–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.03.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., Galesic, M., & Vardavas, R. (2019). Reports of social circles’ and own vaccination behavior: A national longitudinal survey. Health Psychology, 38(11), 975–983. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000771Google Scholar
Burson, K. a, Larrick, R. P., & Klayman, J. (2006). Skilled or unskilled, but still unaware of it: How perceptions of difficulty drive miscalibration in relative comparisons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.60Google Scholar
Castellano, C., Fortunato, S., & Loreto, V. (2009). Statistical physics of social dynamics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(2), 591–646. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.591Google Scholar
Chambers, J. R., & Windschitl, P. D. (2004). Biases in social comparative judgments: The role of nonmotivated factors in above-average and comparative-optimism effects. Psychological Bulletin, 130(5), 813–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.813Google Scholar
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(4), 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa066082Google Scholar
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2008). The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(21), 2249–2258. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0706154Google Scholar
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2010). Connected: The amazing power of social networks and how they shape our lives. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika, 72(2), 263–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-006-1560-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CNN. (2016). Poll: Most see a Hillary Clinton victory and a fair count ahead. www.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-election-poll/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Cohen, R., Havlin, S., & Ben-Avraham, D. (2003). Efficient immunization strategies for computer networks and populations. Physical Review Letters, 91(24), 247901. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.247901Google Scholar
Coleman, J. S. (1958). Relational analysis: The study of social organizations with survey methods. Human Organization, 17(4), 28–36.Google Scholar
Dawes, R. M., & Mulford, M. (1996). The false consensus effect and overconfidence: Flaws in judgment or flaws in how we study judgment? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0020Google Scholar
Easley, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2010). Networks, crowds, and markets. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (2008). Why the unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 98–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.002Google Scholar
Enns, P. K., Lagodny, J., & Schuldt, J. P. (2017). Understanding the 2016 US presidential polls: The importance of hidden Trump supporters. Statistics, Politics and Policy, 8(1), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2017-0003Google Scholar
Feld, S. L. (1991). Why your friends have more friends than you do. American Journal of Sociology, 96(6), 1464–1477. https://doi.org/10.1086/229693Google Scholar
Feld, S. L., & McGail, A. (2020). Egonets as systematically biased windows on society. Network Science, 8(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2020.5Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K. (1996). Explaining and simulating judgment biases as an aggregation phenomenon in probabilistic, multiple-cue environments. Psychological Review, 103(1), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.103.1.193Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107(4), 659–676. https://doi.org/I0.I0371/0033-295X.I07.4.659Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., & Juslin, P. (Eds.) (2006). Information sampling and adaptive cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frable, D. E. S. (1993). Being and feeling unique: Statistical deviance and psychological marginality. Journal of Personality, 61(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00280.xGoogle Scholar
Galesic, M., Bruine de Bruin, W., & Dalege, J., et al. (2021). Human social sensing is an untapped resource for computational social science. Nature, 595(7866), 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03649-2Google Scholar
Galesic, M., Bruine de Bruin, W., & Dumas, M., et al. (2018). Asking about social circles improves election predictions. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(3), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0302-yGoogle Scholar
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., Dalege, J., van der Does, T., & Stein, D. L. (2021). Integrating social and cognitive aspects of belief dynamics: Towards a unifying framework. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 18(176), rsif.2020.0857. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2020.0857Google Scholar
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2012). Social sampling explains apparent biases in judgments of social environments. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1515–1523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612445313Google Scholar
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2013). False consensus about false consensus. In Knauff, M., Pauen, M., Sebanz, N., & Wachsmuth, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 472–476). Berlin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2018). A sampling model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 125(3), 363–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000096Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Fiedler, K., & Olsson, H. (2012). Rethinking cognitive biases as environmental consequences. In Todd, P. M., Gigerenzer, G., & Research Group, ABC (Eds.), Ecological rationality: Intelligence in the world (pp. 80–110). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Graefe, A. (2014). Accuracy of vote expectation surveys in forecasting elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(S1), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu008Google Scholar
Heckathorn, D. D., & Jeffri, J. (2001). Finding the beat: Using respondent-driven sampling to study jazz musicians. Poetics, 28(4), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(01)80006-1Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., & Hoffrage, U. (Eds.). (2013). Simple heuristics in a social world. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., Pachur, T., & Kurzenhäuser, S. (2005). Judgments of risk frequencies: Tests of possible cognitive mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(4), 621–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.4.621Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, R. R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hurd, M. D., & McGarry, K. (2002). The predictive validity of subjective probabilities of survival. Economic Journal, 112(482), 966–985. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00065Google Scholar
Jackson, M. O. (2010). Social and economic networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jordan, A. H., Monin, B., & Dweck, C. S., et al. (2011). Misery has more company than people think: Underestimating the prevalence of others’ negative emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210390822Google Scholar
Juslin, P., Olsson, H., & Björkman, M. (1997). Brunswikian and Thurstonian origins of bias in probability assessment: On the interpretation of stochastic components of judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10(3), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199709)10:3<189::AID-BDM258>3.3.CO;2-WGoogle Scholar
Juslin, P., & Persson, M. (2002). PROBabilities from EXemplars (PROBEX): A “lazy” algorithm for probabilistic inference from generic knowledge. Cognitive Science, 26, 563–607. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2605_2Google Scholar
Juslin, P., Wennerholm, P., & Olsson, H. (1999). Format dependence in subjective probability calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 1038–1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.4.1038Google Scholar
Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Hansson, P. (2007). The naïve intuitive statistician: A naïve sampling model of intuitive confidence intervals. Psychological Review, 114(3), 678–703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jussim, L. (2012). Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kendal, R. L., Boogert, N. J., Rendell, L., Laland, K. N., Webster, M., & Jones, P. L., (2018). Social learning strategies: Bridge-building between fields. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(7), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.04.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, C., Blumenthal, M., & Clement, S., et al. (2018). An evaluation of the 2016 election polls in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx047Google Scholar
Krueger, J. I., & Clement, R. W. (1994). The truly false consensus effect: An ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 596–610. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.596Google Scholar
Krueger, J. I., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Towards a balanced social psychology: Causes, consequences, and cures for the problem-seeking approach to social behavior and cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 313–376. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000081Google Scholar
Krueger, J. I., & Mueller, R. A. (2002). Unskilled, unaware, or both? The better-than-average heuristic and statistical regression predict errors in estimates of own performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 180–188. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.2.180Google Scholar
Kruger, J. (1999). Lake wobegon be gone! The “below-average effect” and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 221–232.Google Scholar
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Mens, G., & Denrell, J. (2011). Rational learning and information sampling: On the “naivety” assumption in sampling explanations of judgment biases. Psychological Review, 118(2), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023010Google Scholar
Lee, E., Karimi, F., & Wagner, C., et al. (2019). Homophily and minority-group size explain perception biases in social networks. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(10), 1078–1087. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0677-4Google Scholar
Lehrer, R., Juhl, S., & Gschwend, T. (2019). The wisdom of crowds design for sensitive survey questions. Electoral Studies, 57 (September 2018), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.09.012Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Skalaban, A. (1989). Citizen forecasting: Can voters see into the future? British Journal of Political Science, 19(1), 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712340000538XGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Tien, C. (1999). Voters as forecasters: A micromodel of election prediction. International Journal of Forecasting, 15(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(98)00063-6Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(6), 551–578. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.551Google Scholar
Lindskog, M., Winman, A., & Juslin, P. (2012). Naïve point estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 782–800. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029670Google Scholar
Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.165Google Scholar
Lopes, L. L. (1992). Risk perception and the perceived public. In Bromley, D. & Segerson, K. (Eds.), The social response to environmental risk (pp. 57–74). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2954-1_3Google Scholar
Lynn, C. W., & Bassett, D. S. (2020). How humans learn and represent networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(47), 29407–29415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912328117Google Scholar
Marks, G., & Miller, N. (1987). Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 102(1), 72–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.72Google Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415Google Scholar
Moore, D. A., & Small, D. A. (2007). Error and bias in comparative judgment: On being both better and worse than we think we are. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 972–989. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.972Google Scholar
Mullen, B., Dovidio, J. F., Johnson, C., & Copper, C. (1992). In-group–out-group differences in social projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(5), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90040-QGoogle Scholar
Murr, A. E. (2016). The wisdom of crowds: What do citizens forecast for the 2015 British general election? Electoral Studies, 41, 283–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.018Google Scholar
Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45(2), 167–256. https://doi.org/10.1137/S003614450342480Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Kunda, Z. (1985). Perception of social distributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.297Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M., Cao, R., Cox, G. E., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2014). Familiarity and categorization processes in memory search. Cognitive Psychology, 75, 97–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.08.003Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104(2), 266–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.266CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsson, H., Barman-Adhikari, A., Galesic, M., Hsu, H.-T., & Rice, E. (2021). Cognitive strategies for peer judgments https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/s3hxjGoogle Scholar
Olsson, H., Bruine de Bruin, W., Galesic, M., & Prelec, D. (2022). Combining survey questions with a Bayesian bootstrap method improves election forecasts. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/nqcgsGoogle Scholar
Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., & Rieskamp, J. (2013). Intuitive judgments of social statistics: How exhaustive does sampling need to be? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1059–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.004Google Scholar
Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., & Steinmann, F. (2012). How do people judge risks: Availability heuristic, affect heuristic, or both? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 314–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028279Google Scholar
Parker, A. M., Vardavas, R., Marcum, C. S., & Gidengil, C. A. (2013). Conscious consideration of herd immunity in influenza vaccination decisions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45(1), 118–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.02.016Google Scholar
Roese, N. J., & Olson, J. M. (2007). Better, stronger, faster: Self-serving judgment, affect regulation, and the optimal vigilance hypothesis. Psychological Science, 2(2), 124–141.Google Scholar
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-XGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, D. M., & Wolfers, J. (2011). Forecasting elections: Voter intentions versus expectations. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1884644Google Scholar
Santoro, L., & Beck, P. A. (2017). Social networks and vote choice. In Victor, J. N., Montgomery, A. H., & Lubell, M. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks (pp. 383–406). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schulze, C., Hertwig, R., & Pachur, T. (2021). Who you know is what you know: Modeling boundedly rational social sampling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(2), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000799Google Scholar
Schwing, R. C., & Kamerud, D. B. (1988). The distribution of risks: Vehicle occupant fatalities and time of the week. Risk Analysis, 8(1), 127–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01159.xGoogle Scholar
Shalizi, C. R., & Thomas, A. C. (2011). Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociological Methods & Research, 40(2), 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124111404820CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Signorile, V., & O’Shea, R. M. (1965). A test of significance for the homophily index. American Journal of Sociology, 70(4), 467–470. https://doi.org/10.1086/223880Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.000245Google Scholar
Sinclair, B. (2012). The social citizen: Peer networks and political behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.003Google Scholar
Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Asking questions: A practical guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00191Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193Google Scholar
Tompson, S. H., Kahn, A. E., Falk, E. B., Vettel, J. M., & Bassett, D. S. (2019). Individual differences in learning social and nonsocial network structures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(2), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000580Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. T., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watts, D. J. (2004). Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

References

Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.64.3.431Google Scholar
Anderson, C., & Putterman, L. (2003). Do non-strategic sanctions obey the law of demand? The demand for punishment in the voluntary contribution mechanism (p. 31). Working paper.Google Scholar
Bergh, R., & Lindskog, M. (2019). The group-motivated sampler. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(5), 845–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000601Google Scholar
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (2001). The many faces of social identity: Implications for political psychology. Political Psychology, 22(1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895x.00229Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B., & Pierce, K. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271710Google Scholar
Cikara, M., Van Bavel, J. J., Ingbretsen, Z. A., & Lau, T. (2017). Decoding “Us” and “Them”: Neural representations of generalized group concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(5), 621–631. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000287CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalmaso, M., Pavan, G., Castelli, L., & Galfano, G. (2012). Social status gates social attention in humans. Biology Letters, 8(3), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0881Google Scholar
Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112(4), 951–978. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.951Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & Le Mens, G. (2017). Information sampling, belief synchronization, and collective illusions. Management Science, 63(2), 528–547. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2354Google Scholar
Derreumaux, Y., Bergh, R., & Hughes, B. (2022). Partisan-motivated sampling: Re-examining politically motivated reasoning across the information processing stream. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(2), 316–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000375CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568Google Scholar
Everett, J. A. C., Faber, N. S., & Crockett, M. (2015). Preferences and beliefs in ingroup favoritism. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9 (Feb.), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107(4), 659–676. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.659Google Scholar
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38, 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12394Google Scholar
Gampa, A., Wojcik, S. P., Motyl, M., Nosek, B. A., & Ditto, P. H. (2019). (Ideo)logical reasoning: Ideology impairs sound reasoning. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619829059Google Scholar
Gramzow, R. H., Gaertner, L., & Sedikides, C. (2001, Feb). Memory for in-group and out-group information in a minimal group context: The self as an informational base. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 80(2), 188–205. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.188. PMID: 11220440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, W., Albarracín, D., & Eagly, A. H., et al. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 555–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015701CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(February), 575–604. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109Google Scholar
Hogg, M. a., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology, 58(4), 255–269. http://www.jstor.org/stabl.Google Scholar
Howard, J. W., & Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorization and memory for in-group and out-group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 301–310.Google Scholar
Hughes, B. L., Zaki, J., & Ambady, N. (2017). Motivation alters impression formation and related neural systems. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw147Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., & Krupenkin, M. (2018). The strengthening of partisan affect. Political Psychology, 39, 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., & Levendusky, M., et al. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 407–424.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (2013). Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception, 4(3), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849776677Google Scholar
King, J. S., & Bee, C. C. (2020). Better in the (near) future: Group-based differences in forecasting biases. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 749–765. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2634Google Scholar
Konovalova, E., & Le Mens, G. (2020). An information sampling explanation for the in-group heterogeneity effect. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000160Google Scholar
Kraft, P. W., Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2015). Why people “don’t trust the evidence”: Motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214554758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Mens, G., & Denrell, J. (2011). Rational learning and information sampling: On the “naivety” assumption in sampling explanations of judgment biases. Psychological Review, 118(2), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023010Google Scholar
Lindskog, M., & Winman, A. (2014). Are all data created equal? Exploring some boundary conditions for a lazy intuitive statistician. PLoS ONE, 9(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097686Google Scholar
Lindskog, M., Winman, A., & Juslin, P. (2013). Naïve point estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 39(3), 782–800. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029670Google Scholar
Miller, K. P., Brewer, M. B., & Arbuckle, N. L. (2009). Social identity complexity: Its correlates and antecedents. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430208098778Google Scholar
Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(2), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220202Google Scholar
Mummendey, A., Simon, B., & Dietze, C., et al. S. (1992). Categorization is not enough: Intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allocation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90035-ICrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onorato, R., & Turner, J. (2004). Fluidity in the self concept: The shift from personal to social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(3), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.195Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.307Google Scholar
Susskind, J., Maurer, K., Thakkar, V., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, J. W. (1999). Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.181Google Scholar
Taber, C. S., Cann, D. M., & Kucsova, S. (2011). The motivated processing of political arguments. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1274028Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Billig, M. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 27–52.Google Scholar
Tamir, D. I., & Hughes, B. L. (2018). Social rewards: From basic social building blocks to complex social behavior. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(6), 700–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618776263Google Scholar
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003).Google Scholar
Willer, D., Turner, J. C., & Hogg, M. A., et al. (1989). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Contemporary Sociology, 18(4), 645. https://doi.org/10.2307/2073157Google Scholar

References

Baldassarri, D., & Bearman, P. (2007). Dynamics of political polarization. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 784–811. doi: 10.1177/000312240707200507Google Scholar
Banerjee, A. V. (1992, 8). A simple model of herd behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(3), 797–817. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-lookup/doi/10.2307/2118364 doi:10.2307/2118364Google Scholar
Barberá, P., Casas, A., & Nagler, J., et al. (2019, 11). Who leads? Who follows? Measuring issue attention and agenda setting by legislators and the mass public using social media data. American Political Science Review, 113(4), 883–901. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000352 doi: 10.1017/S0003055419000352Google Scholar
Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992, 10). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100(5), 992–1026. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/261849 doi: 10.1086/261849Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1991, 10). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. doi: 10.1177/0146167291175001Google Scholar
Broockman, D. E., & Skovron, C. (2018, 8). Bias in perceptions of public opinion among political elites. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 542–563. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/bias-in doi: 10.1017/S0003055418000011Google Scholar
Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1977). Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(4), 315–332. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(77)90002-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, G., Chen, B.-C., & Agarwal, D. (2017). Social incentive optimization in online social networks. In Proceedings of the tenth acm international conference on web search and data mining (pp. 547–556).Google Scholar
DeGroot, M. H. (1974). Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(345), 118–121. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1974.10480137Google Scholar
Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112(4). doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.951Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & Le Mens, G. (2007). Interdependent sampling and social influence. Psychological Review, 114(2), 398–422. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.398Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & Le Mens, G. (2017, 2). Information sampling, belief synchronization, and collective illusions. Management Science, 63(2), 528–547. http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2354 doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2354Google Scholar
Densley, J., & Peterson, J. (2018, 2). Groups aggression (Vol. 19). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.031Google Scholar
Eckles, D., Kizilcec, R. F., & Bakshy, E. (2016). Estimating peer effects in networks with peer encouragement designs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27), 7316–7322.Google Scholar
Flache, A., & Macy, M. W. (2011). Small worlds and cultural polarization. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 35(1–3), 146–176. doi: 10.1080/0022250X.2010.532261Google Scholar
Friedkin, N. E. (1999). Choice shift and group polarization. American Sociological Review, 64(6), 856. doi: 10.2307/2657407Google Scholar
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2012, 12). Social sampling explains apparent biases in judgments of social environments. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1515–1523. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797612445313 doi: 10.1177/0956797612445313Google Scholar
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2018, 4). A sampling model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 125(3), 363–390. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2018-20732-002.htmlGoogle Scholar
Garz, M., Sood, G., Stone, D. F., & Wallace, J. (2019). Is there within-outlet demand for media slant? Evidence from US presidential campaign news. Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3009791Google Scholar
Germano, F., Gómez, V., & Le Mens, G. (2019). The few-get-richer: A surprising consequence of popularity-based rankings. In The web conference 2019: Proceedings of the world wide web conference, www 2019. doi: 10.1145/3308558.3313693Google Scholar
Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014, 9). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581. www.cambridge.org/core/terms.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595Downloadedfromh doi: 10.1017/S1537592714001595Google Scholar
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization. A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6). doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3). doi: 10.1093/poq/nfs038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latané, B., Nowak, A., & Liu, J. H. (1994). Measuring emergent social phenomena: Dynamism, polarization, and clustering as order parameters of social systems. Behavioral Science, 39(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830390102Google Scholar
Mäs, M., & Flache, A. (2013). Differentiation without distancing: Explaining bi-polarization of opinions without negative influence. PLoS ONE, 8(11), e74516. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074516Google Scholar
McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., David, B., & Wetherell, M. S. (1992). Group polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 1–19. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00952.xGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2). doi: 10.1037/h0027568Google Scholar
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4). doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602Google Scholar
Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latané, B. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97(3). doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.362Google Scholar
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2015, 1). Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine, 33(3), 459–464. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017Google Scholar
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986). The repulsion hypothesis: On the nondevelopment of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1156–1166.Google Scholar
Schöll, N., Gallego, A., & Le Mens, G. (2021). Politician–citizen interactions and dynamic representation: Evidence from Twitter. Barcelona: Barcelona School of Economics Working Paper no. 1238.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1515/9781400890521Google Scholar
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006, 7). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1540 5907.2006.00214.x doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.xGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971, 4). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420010202Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The law of effect. American Journal of Psychology, 39(1–4), 212–222.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., Wetherell, M. S., & Hogg, M. A. (1989). Referent informational influence and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28(2), 135–147. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00855.xGoogle Scholar
Woiczyk, T. K. A., & Le Mens, G. (2021). Evaluating categories from experience: The simple averaging heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(4), 747–773. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000231Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×