Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Apr 9;110(15):5791-6.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1217220110. Epub 2013 Mar 27.

Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization

Affiliations

Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization

Pranav Dandekar et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. .

Abstract

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 DeGroot'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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Poole KT, Rosenthal H. The polarization of american politics. J Polit. 1984;46(4):1061–1079.
    1. Poole KT, Rosenthal H. Patterns of congressional voting. Am J Pol Sci. 1991;35(1):228–278.
    1. Hill S. Divided we stand: The polarization of American Politics. Natl Civ Rev. 2009;94(4):3–14.
    1. McCarty N, Poole KT, Rosenthal H. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006.
    1. Schelling TC. Dynamic models of segregation. J Math Sociol. 1971;1:143–186.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources