Literature DB >> 29733664

A sampling model of social judgment.

Mirta Galesic1, Henrik Olsson1, Jörg Rieskamp2.   

Abstract

Studies of social judgments have demonstrated a number of diverse phenomena that were so far difficult to explain within a single theoretical framework. Prominent examples are false consensus and false uniqueness, as well as self-enhancement and self-depreciation. Here we show that these seemingly complex phenomena can be a product of an interplay between basic cognitive processes and the structure of social and task environments. We propose and test a new process model of social judgment, the social sampling model (SSM), which provides a parsimonious quantitative account of different types of social judgments. In the SSM, judgments about characteristics of broader social environments are based on sampling of social instances from memory, where instances receive activation if they belong to a target reference class and have a particular characteristic. These sampling processes interact with the properties of social and task environments, including homophily, shapes of frequency distributions, and question formats. For example, in line with the model's predictions we found that whether false consensus or false uniqueness will occur depends on the level of homophily in people's social circles and on the way questions are asked. The model also explains some previously unaccounted-for patterns of self-enhancement and self-depreciation. People seem to be well informed about many characteristics of their immediate social circles, which in turn influence how they evaluate broader social environments and their position within them. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29733664     DOI: 10.1037/rev0000096

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Rev        ISSN: 0033-295X            Impact factor:   8.934


  9 in total

1.  Social sampling and expressed attitudes: Authenticity preference and social extremeness aversion lead to social norm effects and polarization.

Authors:  Gordon D A Brown; Stephan Lewandowsky; Zhihong Huang
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2022-01       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  The Role of Social Circle Perceptions in "False Consensus" about Population Statistics: Evidence from a National Flu Survey.

Authors:  Wändi Bruine de Bruin; Mirta Galesic; Andrew M Parker; Raffaele Vardavas
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 3.  Human social sensing is an untapped resource for computational social science.

Authors:  Mirta Galesic; Wändi Bruine de Bruin; Jonas Dalege; Scott L Feld; Frauke Kreuter; Henrik Olsson; Drazen Prelec; Daniel L Stein; Tamara van der Does
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Falling through the cracks: Modeling the formation of social category boundaries.

Authors:  Vicky Chuqiao Yang; Tamara van der Does; Henrik Olsson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Predicted preference conjoint analysis.

Authors:  Sonja Radas; Dražen Prelec
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-08-26       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  A simple cognitive method to improve the prediction of matters of taste by exploiting the within-person wisdom-of-crowd effect.

Authors:  Itsuki Fujisaki; Hidehito Honda; Kazuhiro Ueda
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 4.996

7.  Using a cognitive network model of moral and social beliefs to explain belief change.

Authors:  Jonas Dalege; Tamara van der Does
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2022-08-19       Impact factor: 14.957

8.  Integrating social and cognitive aspects of belief dynamics: towards a unifying framework.

Authors:  Mirta Galesic; Henrik Olsson; Jonas Dalege; Tamara van der Does; Daniel L Stein
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 4.118

9.  65% of Americans believe they are above average in intelligence: Results of two nationally representative surveys.

Authors:  Patrick R Heck; Daniel J Simons; Christopher F Chabris
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.