4.8 Article

Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1217220110

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [0904325, 0947670, DGE-1147470]
  2. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  3. Div Of Information & Intelligent Systems [0904325] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Division of Computing and Communication Foundations
  5. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [0947670] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Div Of Information & Intelligent Systems
  7. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [0904314] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We study the issue of polarization in society through a model of opinion formation. We say an opinion formation process is polarizing if it results in increased divergence of opinions. Empirical studies have shown that homophily, i.e., greater interaction between like-minded individuals, results in polarization. However, we show that De Groot's well-known model of opinion formation based on repeated averaging can never be polarizing, even if individuals are arbitrarily homophilous. We generalize DeGroot's model to account for a phenomenon well known in social psychology as biased assimilation: When presented with mixed or inconclusive evidence on a complex issue, individuals draw undue support for their initial position, thereby arriving at a more extreme opinion. We show that in a simple model of homophilous networks, our biased opinion formation process results in polarization if individuals are sufficiently biased. In other words, homophily alone, without biased assimilation, is not sufficient to polarize society. Quite interestingly, biased assimilation also provides a framework to analyze the polarizing effect of Internet-based recommender systems that show us personalized content.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available