Conformity in scientific networks

Scientists are generally subject to social pressures, including pressures to conform with others in their communities, that affect achievement of their epistemic goals. Here we analyze a network epistemology model in which agents, all else being equal, prefer to take actions that conform with those of their neighbors. This preference for conformity interacts with the agents’ beliefs about which of two (or more) possible actions yields the better result. We find a range of possible outcomes, including stable polarization in belief and action. The model results are sensitive to network structure. In general, though, conformity has a negative effect on a community’s ability to reach accurate consensus about the world.

[1]  Alan M. Frieze,et al.  Random graphs , 2006, SODA '06.

[2]  R. Bond,et al.  Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. , 1996 .

[3]  H. Young,et al.  Innovation Diffusion in Heterogeneous Populations , 2006 .

[4]  I. Grundy.  Lady Mary Wortley Montagu , 1994 .

[5]  S. Bikhchandani,et al.  Learning from the behavior of others : conformity, fads, and informational cascades , 1998 .

[6]  A-L Barabási,et al.  Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[8]  S. Bikhchandani,et al.  You have printed the following article : A Theory of Fads , Fashion , Custom , and Cultural Change as Informational Cascades , 2007 .

[9]  Nicolas de Condorcet.  Essai Sur L'Application de L'Analyse a la Probabilite Des Decisions Rendues a la Pluralite Des Voix , 2009 .

[10]  Mathias Ekström,et al.  Like What You Like or Like What Others Like? Conformity and Peer Effects on Facebook , 2011 .

[11]  A. Pavan,et al.  Information Acquisition and Welfare , 2014 .

[12]  David P. Myatt,et al.  Endogenous Information Acquisition in Coordination Games , 2009 .

[13]  L. Festinger.  Social pressures in informal groups : a study of human factors in housing / by Leon Festinger, Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back , 1950 .

[14]  Eli Pariser,et al.  The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think , 2012 .

[15]  Justin P. Bruner,et al.  Experimentation by Industrial Selection , 2017, Philosophy of Science.

[16]  Kevin J. S. Zollman,et al.  Conservatism and the Scientific State of Nature , 2016, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[17]  Christian Straßer,et al.  Examining Network Effects in an Argumentative Agent-Based Model of Scientific Inquiry , 2017, LORI.

[18]  Sanjeev Goyal,et al.  Learning from Neighbors , 1995 .

[19]  E. Brunson,et al.  The Impact of Social Networks on Parents’ Vaccination Decisions , 2013, Pediatrics.

[20]  A. Banerjee,et al.  A Simple Model of Herd Behavior , 1992 .

[21]  M. Newman,et al.  The structure of scientific collaboration networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  IMPROVING DELIBERATIONS BY REDUCING MISREPRESENTATION EFFECTS , 2018, Episteme.

[23]  Kevin J. S. Zollman.  The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity , 2009 .

[24]  Christian Hellwig,et al.  Knowing What Others Know: Coordination Motives in Information Acquisition (March 2007, with Laura Veldkamp) , 2005 .

[25]  Eyton,et al.  The Diffusion of Innovations in Social Networks , 2002 .

[26]  Robert S. Baron,et al.  The forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence. , 1996 .

[27]  Axel Ockenfels,et al.  A shared identity promotes herding in an information cascade game , 2018 .

[28]  Charles Kemp,et al.  Belief polarization is not always irrational. , 2014, Psychological review.

[29]  Justin P. Bruner,et al.  In Epistemic Networks, Is Less Really More? , 2017, Philosophy of Science.

[30]  Cailin O'Connor,et al.  Scientific polarization , 2017, European Journal for Philosophy of Science.

[31]  Justin M. Rao,et al.  Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption , 2016 .

[32]  S. Goyal,et al.  Learning from neighbours , 1998 .

[33]  Kevin J. S. Zollman.  Social structure and the effects of conformity , 2010, Synthese.

[34]  Kevin J. S. Zollman,et al.  The Independence Thesis: When Individual and Social Epistemology Diverge* , 2011, Philosophy of Science.

[35]  Introduction: When Difference Makes a Difference , 2006, Episteme.

[36]  J. Weibull,et al.  Political polarization , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  Béla Bollobás,et al.  Random Graphs , 1985 .

[38]  Kevin J. S. Zollman.  The Communication Structure of Epistemic Communities , 2007, Philosophy of Science.

[39]  S. Nuland,et al.  The etiology, the concept and the prophylaxis of childbed fever , 1981 .

[40]  S. Asch.  Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments , 1951 .

[41]  Justin P. Bruner,et al.  How to Beat Science and Influence People: Policymakers and Propaganda in Epistemic Networks , 2018, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[42]  H. Peyton Young,et al.  The dynamics of social innovation , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[43]  Bennett Holman,et al.  The Problem of Intransigently Biased Agents , 2015, Philosophy of Science.

[44]  Andrea Gawrylewski,et al.  The misinformation age: How False Beliefs Spread. , 2019 .

[45]  Daniel Frey,et al.  Robustness and Idealizations in Agent-Based Models of Scientific Interaction , 2020, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[46]  Patrick Grim,et al.  Understanding Polarization: Meanings, Measures, and Model Evaluation , 2017, Philosophy of Science.

[47]  Daniel Frey,et al.  What Is the Epistemic Function of Highly Idealized Agent-Based Models of Scientific Inquiry? , 2018 .