The impact of hypocrisy on opinion formation: A dynamic model
Humans have a demonstrated tendency to copy or imitate the behavior and attitude of others and actively influence each other's opinions. In plenty of empirical contexts, publicly revealed opinions are not necessarily in line with internal opinions, causing complex social influence dynamics. We...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2019-06, Vol.14 (6), p.e0218729 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | e0218729 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | Gastner, Michael T Takács, Károly Gulyás, Máté Szvetelszky, Zsuzsanna Oborny, Beáta |
| description | Humans have a demonstrated tendency to copy or imitate the behavior and attitude of others and actively influence each other's opinions. In plenty of empirical contexts, publicly revealed opinions are not necessarily in line with internal opinions, causing complex social influence dynamics. We study to what extent hypocrisy is sustained during opinion formation and how hidden opinions change the convergence to consensus in a group. We build and analyze a modified version of the voter model with hypocrisy in a complete graph with a neutral competition between two alternatives. We compare the process from various initial conditions, varying the proportions between the two opinions in the external (revealed) and internal (hidden) layer. According to our results, hypocrisy always prolongs the time needed for reaching a consensus. In a complete graph, this time span increases linearly with group size. We find that the group-level opinion emerges in two steps: (1) a fast and directional process, during which the number of the two kinds of hypocrites equalizes; and (2) a slower, random drift of opinions. During stage (2), the ratio of opinions in the external layer is approximately equal to the ratio in the internal layer; that is, the hidden opinions do not differ significantly from the revealed ones at the group level. We furthermore find that the initial abundances of opinions, but not the initial prevalence of hypocrisy, predicts the mean consensus time and determines the opinions' probabilities of winning. These insights highlight the unimportance of hypocrisy in consensus formation under neutral conditions. Our results have important societal implications in relation to hidden voter preferences in polls and improve our understanding of opinion formation in a more realistic setting than that of conventional voter models. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0218729 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2247707103</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A590974270</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_26db25bd459e4c01969d6dfc628b5308</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A590974270</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c730t-38b5a5d2146246901d4d3a454c1c58c2e16d85d8d8393a337d93a20532a08e533</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk1uL1DAUx4so7rr6DUQLgujDjLk3FRSG9TawsKDrvoZMks5kSJtu0qrz7U1nustU9kHycELyO_-cS06WPYdgDnEB3219Hxrp5q1vzBwgyAtUPshOYYnRjCGAHx7tT7InMW4BoJgz9jg7wRARhApwmn242pjc1q1UXe6rfLNrvQo27nLf5L61jU228qGWXdq9zxe53jWytiqvvTbuafaoki6aZ6M9y35--Xx1_m12cfl1eb64mKkCg26G-YpKqhEkDBFWAqiJxpJQoqCiXCEDmeZUc81xiSXGhU4GpWiRBNxQjM-ylwfd1vkoxsyjQIgUBSggGIjlgdBebkUbbC3DTnhpxf7Ah7WQobPKGYGYXiG60oSWhigAS1ZqpivFUAoTA560Zget-Nu0_Wqi9sleL_ZqzvYCMkAISfzHMbp-VRutTNMF6SZu05vGbsTa_xKMlqkiQ_BvRoHgb3oTO1HbqIxzsjG-3-fJMUeEgoS--ge9vxojtZYpYdtUPr2rBlGxoCUoC5Kan6j5PVRa2qQOp29V2XQ-cXg7cUhMZ_50a9nHKJY_vv8_e3k9ZV8fsRsjXbeJ3vXDn4tTkBxAFXyMwVR3RYZADFNxWw0xTIUYpyK5vThu0J3T7RjgvyXWBDM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2247707103</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The impact of hypocrisy on opinion formation: A dynamic model</title><source>PLoS</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB Free E-Journals</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>SWEPUB Freely available online</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Gastner, Michael T ; Takács, Károly ; Gulyás, Máté ; Szvetelszky, Zsuzsanna ; Oborny, Beáta</creator><creatorcontrib>Gastner, Michael T ; Takács, Károly ; Gulyás, Máté ; Szvetelszky, Zsuzsanna ; Oborny, Beáta</creatorcontrib><description>Humans have a demonstrated tendency to copy or imitate the behavior and attitude of others and actively influence each other's opinions. In plenty of empirical contexts, publicly revealed opinions are not necessarily in line with internal opinions, causing complex social influence dynamics. We study to what extent hypocrisy is sustained during opinion formation and how hidden opinions change the convergence to consensus in a group. We build and analyze a modified version of the voter model with hypocrisy in a complete graph with a neutral competition between two alternatives. We compare the process from various initial conditions, varying the proportions between the two opinions in the external (revealed) and internal (hidden) layer. According to our results, hypocrisy always prolongs the time needed for reaching a consensus. In a complete graph, this time span increases linearly with group size. We find that the group-level opinion emerges in two steps: (1) a fast and directional process, during which the number of the two kinds of hypocrites equalizes; and (2) a slower, random drift of opinions. During stage (2), the ratio of opinions in the external layer is approximately equal to the ratio in the internal layer; that is, the hidden opinions do not differ significantly from the revealed ones at the group level. We furthermore find that the initial abundances of opinions, but not the initial prevalence of hypocrisy, predicts the mean consensus time and determines the opinions' probabilities of winning. These insights highlight the unimportance of hypocrisy in consensus formation under neutral conditions. Our results have important societal implications in relation to hidden voter preferences in polls and improve our understanding of opinion formation in a more realistic setting than that of conventional voter models.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218729</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31242270</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Anxiety ; Attitude ; Attitudes ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Cognitive Dissonance ; Completeness ; Computer Simulation ; Dynamic models ; Empirical analysis ; Experiments ; Group size ; Humans ; Initial conditions ; Interpersonal Relations ; Juries ; Models, Psychological ; Models, Theoretical ; Physical sciences ; Public Opinion ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Social influence ; Social Sciences ; Studies ; Taxonomy</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2019-06, Vol.14 (6), p.e0218729</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2019 Gastner et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2019 Gastner et al 2019 Gastner et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c730t-38b5a5d2146246901d4d3a454c1c58c2e16d85d8d8393a337d93a20532a08e533</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c730t-38b5a5d2146246901d4d3a454c1c58c2e16d85d8d8393a337d93a20532a08e533</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1097-8833</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6594623/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6594623/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,550,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31242270$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-160444$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gastner, Michael T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Takács, Károly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gulyás, Máté</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szvetelszky, Zsuzsanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oborny, Beáta</creatorcontrib><title>The impact of hypocrisy on opinion formation: A dynamic model</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Humans have a demonstrated tendency to copy or imitate the behavior and attitude of others and actively influence each other's opinions. In plenty of empirical contexts, publicly revealed opinions are not necessarily in line with internal opinions, causing complex social influence dynamics. We study to what extent hypocrisy is sustained during opinion formation and how hidden opinions change the convergence to consensus in a group. We build and analyze a modified version of the voter model with hypocrisy in a complete graph with a neutral competition between two alternatives. We compare the process from various initial conditions, varying the proportions between the two opinions in the external (revealed) and internal (hidden) layer. According to our results, hypocrisy always prolongs the time needed for reaching a consensus. In a complete graph, this time span increases linearly with group size. We find that the group-level opinion emerges in two steps: (1) a fast and directional process, during which the number of the two kinds of hypocrites equalizes; and (2) a slower, random drift of opinions. During stage (2), the ratio of opinions in the external layer is approximately equal to the ratio in the internal layer; that is, the hidden opinions do not differ significantly from the revealed ones at the group level. We furthermore find that the initial abundances of opinions, but not the initial prevalence of hypocrisy, predicts the mean consensus time and determines the opinions' probabilities of winning. These insights highlight the unimportance of hypocrisy in consensus formation under neutral conditions. Our results have important societal implications in relation to hidden voter preferences in polls and improve our understanding of opinion formation in a more realistic setting than that of conventional voter models.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Anxiety</subject><subject>Attitude</subject><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Cognitive Dissonance</subject><subject>Completeness</subject><subject>Computer Simulation</subject><subject>Dynamic models</subject><subject>Empirical analysis</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Group size</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Initial conditions</subject><subject>Interpersonal Relations</subject><subject>Juries</subject><subject>Models, Psychological</subject><subject>Models, Theoretical</subject><subject>Physical sciences</subject><subject>Public Opinion</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Social influence</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Taxonomy</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>D8T</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk1uL1DAUx4so7rr6DUQLgujDjLk3FRSG9TawsKDrvoZMks5kSJtu0qrz7U1nustU9kHycELyO_-cS06WPYdgDnEB3219Hxrp5q1vzBwgyAtUPshOYYnRjCGAHx7tT7InMW4BoJgz9jg7wRARhApwmn242pjc1q1UXe6rfLNrvQo27nLf5L61jU228qGWXdq9zxe53jWytiqvvTbuafaoki6aZ6M9y35--Xx1_m12cfl1eb64mKkCg26G-YpKqhEkDBFWAqiJxpJQoqCiXCEDmeZUc81xiSXGhU4GpWiRBNxQjM-ylwfd1vkoxsyjQIgUBSggGIjlgdBebkUbbC3DTnhpxf7Ah7WQobPKGYGYXiG60oSWhigAS1ZqpivFUAoTA560Zget-Nu0_Wqi9sleL_ZqzvYCMkAISfzHMbp-VRutTNMF6SZu05vGbsTa_xKMlqkiQ_BvRoHgb3oTO1HbqIxzsjG-3-fJMUeEgoS--ge9vxojtZYpYdtUPr2rBlGxoCUoC5Kan6j5PVRa2qQOp29V2XQ-cXg7cUhMZ_50a9nHKJY_vv8_e3k9ZV8fsRsjXbeJ3vXDn4tTkBxAFXyMwVR3RYZADFNxWw0xTIUYpyK5vThu0J3T7RjgvyXWBDM</recordid><startdate>20190626</startdate><enddate>20190626</enddate><creator>Gastner, Michael T</creator><creator>Takács, Károly</creator><creator>Gulyás, Máté</creator><creator>Szvetelszky, Zsuzsanna</creator><creator>Oborny, Beáta</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>ABXSW</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>D8T</scope><scope>DG8</scope><scope>ZZAVC</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1097-8833</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190626</creationdate><title>The impact of hypocrisy on opinion formation: A dynamic model</title><author>Gastner, Michael T ; Takács, Károly ; Gulyás, Máté ; Szvetelszky, Zsuzsanna ; Oborny, Beáta</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c730t-38b5a5d2146246901d4d3a454c1c58c2e16d85d8d8393a337d93a20532a08e533</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Anxiety</topic><topic>Attitude</topic><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Cognitive Dissonance</topic><topic>Completeness</topic><topic>Computer Simulation</topic><topic>Dynamic models</topic><topic>Empirical analysis</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Group size</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Initial conditions</topic><topic>Interpersonal Relations</topic><topic>Juries</topic><topic>Models, Psychological</topic><topic>Models, Theoretical</topic><topic>Physical sciences</topic><topic>Public Opinion</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Social influence</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Taxonomy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gastner, Michael T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Takács, Károly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gulyás, Máté</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szvetelszky, Zsuzsanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oborny, Beáta</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale in Context : Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database (1962 - current)</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies & aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>SWEPUB Linköpings universitet full text</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Freely available online</collection><collection>SWEPUB Linköpings universitet</collection><collection>SwePub Articles full text</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gastner, Michael T</au><au>Takács, Károly</au><au>Gulyás, Máté</au><au>Szvetelszky, Zsuzsanna</au><au>Oborny, Beáta</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The impact of hypocrisy on opinion formation: A dynamic model</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2019-06-26</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e0218729</spage><pages>e0218729-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Humans have a demonstrated tendency to copy or imitate the behavior and attitude of others and actively influence each other's opinions. In plenty of empirical contexts, publicly revealed opinions are not necessarily in line with internal opinions, causing complex social influence dynamics. We study to what extent hypocrisy is sustained during opinion formation and how hidden opinions change the convergence to consensus in a group. We build and analyze a modified version of the voter model with hypocrisy in a complete graph with a neutral competition between two alternatives. We compare the process from various initial conditions, varying the proportions between the two opinions in the external (revealed) and internal (hidden) layer. According to our results, hypocrisy always prolongs the time needed for reaching a consensus. In a complete graph, this time span increases linearly with group size. We find that the group-level opinion emerges in two steps: (1) a fast and directional process, during which the number of the two kinds of hypocrites equalizes; and (2) a slower, random drift of opinions. During stage (2), the ratio of opinions in the external layer is approximately equal to the ratio in the internal layer; that is, the hidden opinions do not differ significantly from the revealed ones at the group level. We furthermore find that the initial abundances of opinions, but not the initial prevalence of hypocrisy, predicts the mean consensus time and determines the opinions' probabilities of winning. These insights highlight the unimportance of hypocrisy in consensus formation under neutral conditions. Our results have important societal implications in relation to hidden voter preferences in polls and improve our understanding of opinion formation in a more realistic setting than that of conventional voter models.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>31242270</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0218729</doi><tpages>e0218729</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1097-8833</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2019-06, Vol.14 (6), p.e0218729 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2247707103 |
| source | PLoS; MEDLINE; EZB Free E-Journals; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central; SWEPUB Freely available online; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Analysis Anxiety Attitude Attitudes Biology and Life Sciences Cognitive Dissonance Completeness Computer Simulation Dynamic models Empirical analysis Experiments Group size Humans Initial conditions Interpersonal Relations Juries Models, Psychological Models, Theoretical Physical sciences Public Opinion Research and Analysis Methods Social influence Social Sciences Studies Taxonomy |
| title | The impact of hypocrisy on opinion formation: A dynamic model |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T16%3A25%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20impact%20of%20hypocrisy%20on%20opinion%20formation:%20A%20dynamic%20model&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Gastner,%20Michael%20T&rft.date=2019-06-26&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e0218729&rft.pages=e0218729-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0218729&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA590974270%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2247707103&rft_id=info:pmid/31242270&rft_galeid=A590974270&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_26db25bd459e4c01969d6dfc628b5308&rfr_iscdi=true |