Homophily and minority-group size explain perception biases in social networks.
Journal
Nature human behaviour
ISSN: 2397-3374
Titre abrégé: Nat Hum Behav
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101697750
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2019
10 2019
Historique:
received:
05
11
2018
accepted:
03
07
2019
pubmed:
14
8
2019
medline:
18
2
2020
entrez:
14
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
People's perceptions about the size of minority groups in social networks can be biased, often showing systematic over- or underestimation. These social perception biases are often attributed to biased cognitive or motivational processes. Here we show that both over- and underestimation of the size of a minority group can emerge solely from structural properties of social networks. Using a generative network model, we show that these biases depend on the level of homophily, its asymmetric nature and on the size of the minority group. Our model predictions correspond well with empirical data from a cross-cultural survey and with numerical calculations from six real-world networks. We also identify circumstances under which individuals can reduce their biases by relying on perceptions of their neighbours. This work advances our understanding of the impact of network structure on social perception biases and offers a quantitative approach for addressing related issues in society.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31406337
doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0677-4
pii: 10.1038/s41562-019-0677-4
pmc: PMC6839769
mid: NIHMS1055919
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1078-1087Subventions
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : R01 HD075712
Pays : United States
Références
Cialdini, R. B. & Trost, M. R. Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance. in The Handbook of Social Psychology (eds. Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G.) 151–192 (McGraw-Hill, 1998).
Bond, R. M. et al. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489, 295–298 (2012).
doi: 10.1038/nature11421
Allcott, H. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 95, 1082–1095 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003
Centola, D. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329, 1194–1197 (2010).
doi: 10.1126/science.1185231
Borsari, B. & Carey, K. B. Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: a meta-analytic integration. J. Stud. Alcohol 64, 331–341 (2003).
doi: 10.15288/jsa.2003.64.331
Botvin, G. J., Botvin, E. M., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L. & Goldberg, C. J. The false consensus effect: predicting adolescents’ tobacco use from normative expectations. Psychol. Rep. 70, 171–178 (1992).
doi: 10.2466/pr0.1992.70.1.171
Thompson, A. Journalists and Trump voters live in separate online bubbles. VICE News https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/d3xamx/journalists-and-trump-voters-live-in-separate-online-bubbles-mit-analysis-shows (8 December 2017).
Fields, J. M. & Schuman, H. Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opin. Q. 40, 427–448 (1976).
doi: 10.1086/268330
Ross, L., Greene, D. & House, P. The ‘false consensus effect’: an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 13, 279–301 (1977).
doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X
Mullen, B. et al. The false consensus effect: a meta-analysis of 115 hypothesis tests. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 21, 262–283 (1985).
doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(85)90020-4
Krueger, J. & Clement, R. W. The truly false consensus effect: an ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67, 596–610 (1994).
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.596
Krueger, J. From social projection to social behaviour. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 18, 1–35 (2007).
doi: 10.1080/10463280701284645
Mullen, B., Dovidio, J. F., Johnson, C. & Copper, C. In-group-out-group differences in social projection. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 28, 422–440 (1992).
doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(92)90040-Q
Suls, J. & Wan, C. K. In search of the false-uniqueness phenomenon: fear and estimates of social consensus. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52, 211–217 (1987).
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.211
Miller, D. T. & McFarland, C. Pluralistic ignorance: when similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53, 298–305 (1987).
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.2.298
Prentice, D. & Miller, D. T. Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 64, 243–256 (1993).
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243
Lerman, K., Yan, X. & Wu, X.-Z. The ‘majority illusion’ in social networks. PLoS One 11, e0147617 (2016).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147617
Krueger, J. & Clement, R. W. Estimates of social consensus by majorities and minorities: the case for social projection. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 1, 299–313 (1997).
doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_2
Sherman, S. J., Presson, C. C., Chassin, L., Corty, E. & Olshavsky, R. The false consensus effect in estimates of smoking prevalence: underlying mechanisms. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 9, 197–207 (1983).
doi: 10.1177/0146167283092003
Galesic, M., Olsson, H. & Rieskamp, J. A sampling model of social judgment. Psychol. Rev. 125, 363 (2018).
doi: 10.1037/rev0000096
Juslin, P., Winman, A. & Hansson, P. The naïve intuitive statistician: a naïve sampling model of intuitive confidence intervals. Psychol. Rev. 114, 678–703 (2007).
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.678
Pachur, T., Hertwig, R. & Rieskamp, J. Intuitive judgments of social statistics: how exhaustive does sampling need to be? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49, 1059–1077 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.004
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J. M. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27, 415–444 (2001).
doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Jadidi, M., Karimi, F., Lietz, H. & Wagner, C. Gender disparities in science? Dropout, productivity, collaborations and success of male and female computer scientists. Adv. Complex Syst. 21, 1750011 (2018).
doi: 10.1142/S0219525917500114
Miller, M. K., Wang, G., Kulkarni, S. R., Poor, H. V. & Osherson, D. N. Citizen forecasts of the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Polit. Policy 40, 1019–1052 (2012).
doi: 10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00394.x
Dawes, R. M. Statistical criteria for establishing a truly false consensus effect. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25, 1–17 (1989).
doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(89)90036-X
Marks, G. & Miller, N. Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: an empirical and theoretical review. Psychol. Bull. 102, 72 (1987).
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.72
Suls, J., Wan, C. K. & Sanders, G. S. False consensus and false uniqueness in estimating the prevalence of health-protective behaviors. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 18, 66–79 (1988).
doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00006.x
Bianconi, G. & Barabási, A.-L. Competition and multiscaling in evolving networks. Europhys. Lett. 54, 436 (2001).
doi: 10.1209/epl/i2001-00260-6
Fiedler, K. & Krueger, J. I. More than an artifact: regression as a theoretical construct. in Social Judgment and Decision Making 171–189 (Psychology Press, 2012).
Fiedler, K. & Unkelbach, C. Regressive judgment: implications of a universal property of the empirical world. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23, 361–367 (2014).
doi: 10.1177/0963721414546330
Karimi, F., Génois, M., Wagner, C., Singer, P. & Strohmaier, M. Homophily influences ranking of minorities in social networks. Sci. Rep. 8, 11077 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-29405-7
Newman, M. E. Mixing patterns in networks. Phys. Rev. E 67, 026126 (2003).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.67.026126
Aral, S. & Walker, D. Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks. Science 337, 337–41 (2012).
doi: 10.1126/science.1215842
Golub, B. & Jackson, M. O. Naive learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. Am. Econ. J. Microecon. 2, 112–149 (2010).
doi: 10.1257/mic.2.1.112
Becker, J., Brackbill, D. & Centola, D. Network dynamics of social influence in the wisdom of crowds. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E5070–E5076 (2017).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1621512114
DeGroot, M. H. Reaching a consensus. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69, 118–121 (1974).
doi: 10.1080/01621459.1974.10480137
Fiedler, K. Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychol. Rev. 107, 659 (2000).
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.659
Gigerenzer, G., Fiedler, K. & Olsson, H. Rethinking cognitive biases as environmental consequences. in Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World 80–110 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).
Le Mens, G. & Denrell, J. Rational learning and information sampling: on the ‘naivety’ assumption in sampling explanations of judgment biases. Psychol. Rev. 118, 379–392 (2011).
doi: 10.1037/a0023010
Denrell, J. & Le Mens, G. Information sampling, belief synchronization, and collective illusions. Manag. Sci. 63, 528–547 (2016).
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2354
Krueger, J. On the perception of social consensus. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 163–240 (Academic Press, 1998).
Centola, D. An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. Science 334, 1269–1272 (2011).
doi: 10.1126/science.1207055
Mollica, K. A., Gray, B. & Treviño, L. K. Racial homophily and its persistence in newcomers’ social networks. Organ. Sci. 14, 123–136 (2003).
doi: 10.1287/orsc.14.2.123.14994
Mehra, A., Kilduff, M. & Brass, D. J. At the margins: a distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups. Acad. Manag. J. 41, 441–452 (1998).
Festinger, L. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7, 117–140 (1954).
doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202
Suls, J., Martin, R. & Wheeler, L. Social comparison: why, with whom, and with what effect? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 11, 159–163 (2002).
doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00191
Mobilia, M. Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters? Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 028701 (2003).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.028701
Mobilia, M., Petersen, A. & Redner, S. On the role of zealotry in the voter model. J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp. 2007, P08029 (2007).
doi: 10.1088/1742-5468/2007/08/P08029
Centola, D., Becker, J., Brackbill, D. & Baronchelli, A. Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention. Science 360, 1116–1119 (2018).
doi: 10.1126/science.aas8827
Rocha, L. E., Liljeros, F. & Holme, P. Simulated epidemics in an empirical spatiotemporal network of 50,185 sexual contacts. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7, e1001109 (2011).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001109
Holme, P., Edling, C. R. & Liljeros, F. Structure and time evolution of an internet dating community. Soc. Netw. 26, 155–174 (2004).
doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2004.01.007
Holme, P., Liljeros, F., Edling, C. R. & Kim, B. J. Network bipartivity. Phys. Rev. E 68, 056107 (2003).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.68.056107
Traud, A. L., Mucha, P. J. & Porter, M. A. Social structure of facebook networks. Physica A 391, 4165–4180 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2011.12.021
Karimi, F., Wagner, C., Lemmerich, F., Jadidi, M. & Strohmaier, M. Interring gender from names on the web: a comparative evaluation of gender detection. in Proceedings of WWW ’16 Companion 53–54 (International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2016).
Collaboration networks from DataBase systems and Logic Programming (DBLP). http://dblp.uni-trier.de/ (accessed 30 September 2016).