Similarity and Polarization in Groups

The focus of this paper is the endogenous formation of peer groups. We study a model in which agents choose their peers prior to making decisions on multiple issues. Agents differ in how much they value the decision outcomes on one issue relative to another. While each individual can collect information on at most one issue, all information is shared within the group. Thus, the group's preference composition affects the type of information that gets collected. We characterize stable groups, groups that are optimal for all their members. When information costs are low, stable groups must be sufficiently homogeneous. Furthermore, stability requires more similarity among extremists than among moderate individuals. When information costs are substantial, a free rider problem arises, and makes extreme peers more desirable, as they are more willing to invest in information acquisition. We show that, as information costs grow, polarization appears and becomes increasingly pronounced in stable groups.

[1]  Andrea Prat,et al.  Endogenous Communication in Complex Organizations , 2009 .

[2]  M. Mobius,et al.  Getting Closer or Drifting Apart , 2004 .

[3]  G. Demange Intermediate Preferences and Stable Coalition Structures , 1994 .

[4]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  6. Katz, E. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications , 1956 .

[5]  Mark S. Granovetter,et al.  Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. , 1976 .

[6]  David Marmaros,et al.  How Do Friendships Form? , 2005 .

[7]  Clark Wissler,et al.  Middletown : a study in contemporary American culture , 1929 .

[8]  E. Glaeser,et al.  Crime and Social Interactions , 1995 .

[9]  W. Evans,et al.  Measuring Peer Group Effects: A Study of Teenage Behavior , 1992, Journal of Political Economy.

[10]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization , 1991 .

[11]  D. Kandel Homophily, Selection, and Socialization in Adolescent Friendships , 1978, American Journal of Sociology.

[12]  Yann Bramoullé,et al.  Diversity and Popularity in Social Networks , 2009 .

[13]  Bryan Ellickson,et al.  Clubs and the Market , 1999 .

[14]  Leeat Yariv,et al.  Linking and Giving Among Teenage Girls , 2007 .

[15]  Steven L. Puller,et al.  The Old Boy (and Girl) Network: Social Network Formation on University Campuses , 2008 .

[16]  M. Rosenzweig,et al.  Learning by Doing and Learning from Others: Human Capital and Technical Change in Agriculture , 1995, Journal of Political Economy.

[17]  C. McCarty,et al.  Comparing Two Methods for Estimating Network Size , 2001 .

[18]  Reinhard Selten,et al.  Behavioral conformity in games with many players , 2006, Games Econ. Behav..

[19]  Shlomo Weber,et al.  Strong tiebout equilibrium under restricted preferences domain , 1986 .

[20]  Timothy G. Conley,et al.  Learning About a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana , 2010 .

[21]  Giorgio Topa,et al.  Social interactions, local spillovers and unemployment , 2001 .

[22]  Kaivan Munshi Social learning in a heterogeneous population: technology diffusion in the Indian Green Revolution , 2004 .

[23]  S. Fiske,et al.  Social Psychology , 2019, Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences.

[25]  Leeat Yariv,et al.  The 1/d Law of Giving , 2010 .

[26]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Friendship as Social process: a substantive and methodological analysis , 1964 .

[27]  Robin I. M. Dunbar Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates , 1992 .

[28]  M. Jackson,et al.  An Economic Model of Friendship: Homophily, Minorities and Segregation , 2007 .

[29]  Navin Kartik,et al.  Opinions as Incentives , 2009, Journal of Political Economy.

[30]  Charles M. Tiebout A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures , 1956, Journal of Political Economy.

[31]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[32]  Maureen S. Battistella,et al.  Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization , 1991 .