Political coherence and certainty as drivers of interpersonal liking over and above similarity

Promoting Erroneous Divergent Opinions Increases the Wisdom of Crowds

The aggregation of many lay judgments generates surprisingly accurate estimates. This phenomenon, called the "wisdom of crowds," has been demonstrated in domains such as medical decision-making and financial forecasting. Previous research identified two factors driving this effect: the accuracy of individual assessments and the diversity of opinions. Most available strategies to enhance the wisdom of crowds have focused on improving individual accuracy while neglecting the potential of increasing opinion diversity. Here, we study a complementary approach to reduce collective error by promoting erroneous divergent opinions. This strategy proposes to anchor half of the crowd to a small value and the other half to a large value before eliciting and averaging all estimates. Consistent with our mathematical modeling, four experiments (N = 1,362 adults) demonstrated that this method is effective for estimation and forecasting tasks. Beyond the practical implications, these findings offer new theoretical insights into the epistemic value of collective decision-making.

Attraction by pairwise coherence explains the emergence of ideological sorting

Political polarization has become a growing concern in democratic societies, as it drives tribal alignments and erodes civic deliberation among citizens. Given its prevalence across different countries, previous research has sought to understand under which conditions people tend to endorse extreme opinions. However, in polarized contexts, citizens not only adopt more extreme views but also become correlated across issues that are, a priori, seemingly unrelated. This phenomenon, known as "ideological sorting", has been receiving greater attention in recent years but the micro-level mechanisms underlying its emergence remain poorly understood. Here, we study the conditions under which a social dynamic system is expected to become ideologically sorted as a function of the mechanisms of interaction between its individuals. To this end, we developed and analyzed a multidimensional agent-based model that incorporates two mechanisms: homophily (where people tend to interact with those holding similar opinions) and pairwise-coherence favoritism (where people tend to interact with ingroups holding politically coherent opinions). We numerically integrated the model's master equations that perfectly describe the system's dynamics and found that ideological sorting only emerges in models that include pairwise-coherence favoritism. We then compared the model's outcomes with empirical data from 24,035 opinions across 67 topics and found that pairwise-coherence favoritism is significantly present in datasets that measure political attitudes but absent across topics not considered related to politics. Overall, this work combines theoretical approaches from system dynamics with model-based analyses of empirical data to uncover a potential mechanism underlying the pervasiveness of ideological sorting.

Multidimensional attributes expose Heider balance dynamics to measurements

Most of studied social interactions arise from dyadic relations. An exception is Heider Balance Theory that postulates the existence of triad dynamics, which however has been elusive to observe. Here, we discover a sufficient condition for the Heider dynamics observability: assigning the edge signs according to multiple opinions of connected agents. Using longitudinal records of university student mutual contacts and opinions, we create a coevolving network on which we introduce models of student interactions. These models account for: multiple topics of individual student opinions, influence of such opinions on dyadic relations, and influence of triadic relations on opinions. We show that the triadic influence is empirically measurable for static and dynamic observables when signs of edges are defined by multidimensional differences between opinions on all topics. Yet, when these signs are defined by a difference between opinions on each topic separately, the triadic interactions' influence is indistinguishable from noise.

Homophily and acrophily as drivers of political segregation

Political segregation is an important social problem, increasing polarization and impeding effective governance. Previous work has viewed the central driver of segregation to be political homophily, the tendency to associate with others who have similar views. Here we propose that, in addition to homophily, people's social tie decisions are driven by political acrophily, the tendency to associate with others who have more extreme political views (rather than more moderate). We examined this using a paradigm in which participants share emotions and attitudes on political policies, observe others' responses and choose which others to affiliate with. In four studies (N = 1,235), both liberal and conservative participants' social tie decisions reflected the presence of acrophily. We found that participants who viewed peers who expressed more extreme views as more prototypical of their political group also tended to engage in greater acrophily. These studies identify a previously overlooked tendency in tie formation.