Exposure to the Views of Opposing Others with Latent Cognitive Differences Results in Social Influence—But Only When Those Differences Remain Obscured

References

• Abrams D, Hogg MA (1990) Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psych. 1(1):195–228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aggarwal I, Woolley AW (2019) Team creativity, cognition, and cognitive style diversity. Management Sci. 65(4):1586–1599.Link, Google Scholar
• Amabile TM, Conti R, Coon H, Lazenby J, Herron M (1996) Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acad. Management J. 39(5):1154–1184.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aminpour P, Gray SA, Jetter AJ, Introne JE, Singer A, Arlinghaus R (2020) Wisdom of stakeholder crowds in complex social–ecological systems. Nature Sustainability 3(3):191–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bail CA, Argyle LP, Brown TW, Bumpus JP, Chen H, Hunzaker MBF, Lee J, Mann M, Merhout F, Volfovsky A (2018) Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115(37):9216–9221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldassarri D, Bearman P (2007) Dynamics of political polarization. Am. Sociol. Rev. 72(5):784–811.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balietti S, Getoor L, Goldstein DG, Watts DJ (2021) Reducing opinion polarization: Effects of exposure to similar people with differing political views. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118(52):e2112552118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker J, Brackbill D, Centola D (2017) Network dynamics of social influence in the wisdom of crowds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114(26):E5070–E5076.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker JA, Guilbeault D, Smith EB (2021) The crowd classification problem: Social dynamics of binary-choice accuracy. Management Sci. 68(5):3949–3965.Link, Google Scholar
• Boutyline A, Soter LK (2020) Cultural schemas: What they are, how to find them, and what to do once you’ve caught one. Am. Sociol. Rev. 86(4):728–758.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Byrne D (1997) An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. J. Soc. Personal Relationships 14(3):417–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Converse S (1993) Shared mental models in expert team decision making. Castellan NJ, ed. Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Issues (Psychology Press, New York), 221–246.Google Scholar
• Carley K, Palmquist M (1992) Extracting, representing, and analyzing mental models. Soc. Forces 70(3):601–636.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Centola D (2021) Change: How to Make Big Things Happen (Little, Brown and Company, New York).Google Scholar
• Centola D (2022) The network science of collective intelligence. Trends Cognitive Sci. 26(11):923–941.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Centola D, Guilbeault D, Sarkar U, Khoong E, Zhang J (2021) The reduction of race and gender bias in clinical treatment recommendations using clinician peer networks in an experimental setting. Nature Comm. 12:6585.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cerulo KA, Leschziner V, Shepherd H (2021) Rethinking culture and cognition. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 47:63–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chemers M (2014) An Integrative Theory of Leadership (Psychology Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen H, De P, Hu YJ, Hwang B-H (2014) Wisdom of crowds: The value of stock opinions transmitted through social media. Rev. Financial Stud. 27(5):1367–1403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ (2004) Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psych. 55:591–621.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cialdini RB, Sagarin BJ (2005) Principles of interpersonal influence. Brock TC, Green MC, eds. Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives (Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA), 143–169.Google Scholar
• Collins AM, Loftus EF (1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psych. Rev. 82(6):407–428.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Constant A, Ramstead MJD, Veissière SPL, Friston K (2019) Regimes of expectations: An active inference model of social conformity and human decision making. Frontiers Psych. 10:679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• d’Andrade RG (1995) The Development of Cognitive Anthropology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Vaan M, Stark D, Vedres B (2015) Game changer: The topology of creativity. Amer. J. Sociol. 120(4):1144–1194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeGroot MH (1974) Reaching a consensus. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 69(345):118–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DellaPosta D, Shi Y, Macy M (2015) Why do liberals drink lattes? Amer. J. Sociol. 120(5):1473–1511.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DiMaggio P (1997) Culture and cognition. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 23:263–287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feinberg M, Willer R (2015) From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence? Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 41(12):1665–1681.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P (2007) Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends Cognitive Sci. 11(2):77–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flache A, Macy MW (2011) Small worlds and cultural polarization. J. Math. Sociol. 35(1–3):146–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• French JRP Jr (1956) A formal theory of social power. Psych. Rev. 63(3):181–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frey V, van de Rijt A (2021) Social influence undermines the wisdom of the crowd in sequential decision making. Management Sci. 67(7):4273–4286.Link, Google Scholar
• Friedkin NE (1998) A Structural Theory of Social Influence, Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences, vol. 13 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedkin NE, Johnsen EC (2011) Social Influence Network Theory: A Sociological Examination of Small Group Dynamics, Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences, vol. 33 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gauchat G, Andrews KT (2018) The cultural-cognitive mapping of scientific professions. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 83(3):567–595.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldberg A (2011) Mapping shared understandings using relational class analysis: The case of the cultural omnivore reexamined. Amer. J. Sociol. 116(5):1397–1436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldberg A, Stein SK (2018) Beyond social contagion: Associative diffusion and the emergence of cultural variation. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 83(5):897–932.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grant AM, Berry JW (2011) The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Acad. Management J. 54(1):73–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guilbeault D, Centola D (2020) Networked collective intelligence improves dissemination of scientific information regarding smoking risks. PLoS One 15(2):e0227813.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guilbeault D, Baronchelli A, Centola D (2021) Experimental evidence for scale-induced category convergence across populations. Nature Comm. 12:327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guilbeault D, Becker J, Centola D (2018) Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115(39):9714–9719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoever IJ, Van Knippenberg D, Van Ginkel WP, Barkema HG (2012) Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. J. Appl. Psych. 97(5):982–996.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogg MA, Turner JC (1987) Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. Br. J. Soc. Psych. 26(4):325–340.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogg MA, Turner JC, Davidson B (1990) Polarized norms and social frames of reference: A test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 11(1):77–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hong L, Page SE (2004) Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101(46):16385–16389.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hunzaker MBF (2016) Cultural sentiments and schema-consistency bias in information transmission. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 81(6):1223–1250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hunzaker MBF, Valentino L (2019) Mapping cultural schemas: From theory to method. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 84(5):950–981.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jahani E, Gallagher N, Merhout F, Cavalli N, Guilbeault D, Leng Y, Bail CA (2022) An online experiment during the 2020 US–Iran crisis shows that exposure to common enemies can increase political polarization. Sci. Rep. 12:19304.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaufmann R, Gupta P, Taylor J (2021) An active inference model of collective intelligence. Entropy 23(7):830.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lakoff G (2010) Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Leenders RTAJ (2002) Modeling social influence through network autocorrelation: Constructing the weight matrix. Soc. Networks 24(1):21–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu CC, Srivastava SB (2015) Pulling closer and moving apart: Interaction, identity, and influence in the US Senate, 1973 to 2009. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 80(1):192–217.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu K-Y, King M, Bearman PS (2010) Social influence and the autism epidemic. Amer. J. Sociol. 115(5):1387–1434.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lix K, Goldberg A, Srivastava S, Valentine MA (2022) Aligning differences: Discursive diversity and team performance. Management Sci. 68(11):8430–8448.Link, Google Scholar
• Macy MW, Kitts JA, Flache A, Benard S (2003) Polarization in dynamic networks: A Hopfield model of emergent structure. Breiger R, Carley K, Pattison P, eds. Dynamic Social Network Modeling and Analysis (National Academies Press, Washington, DC), 162–173.Google Scholar
• Mancini A, Desiderio A, Di Clemente R, Cimini G (2022) Self-induced consensus of Reddit users to characterise the GameStop short squeeze. Sci. Rep. 12:13780.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mark NP (2003) Culture and competition: Homophily and distancing explanations for cultural niches. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 68(3):319–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marsden PV (1981) Introducing influence processes into a system of collective decisions. Amer. J. Sociol. 86(6):1203–1235.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marsden PV, Friedkin NE (1993) Network studies of social influence. Sociol. Methods Res. 22(1):127–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mäs M, Flache A, Kitts JA (2014) Cultural integration and differentiation in groups and organizations. Dignum V, Dignum F, eds. Perspectives on Culture and Agent-Based Simulations (Springer, Cham, Switzerland), 71–90.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matzler K, Strobl A, Bailom F (2016) Leadership and the wisdom of crowds: How to tap into the collective intelligence of an organization. Strategy Leadership 44(1):30–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mayo AT, Woolley AW, Chow RM (2020) Unpacking participation and influence: Diversity’s countervailing effects on expertise use in groups. Acad. Management Discov. 6(2):300–319.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDaniel MA, Whetzel DL (2005) Situational judgment test research: Informing the debate on practical intelligence theory. Intelligence 33(5):515–525.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miles A, Charron-Chénier R, Schleifer C (2019) Measuring automatic cognition: Advancing dual-process research in sociology. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 84(2):308–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mohr JW (1998) Measuring meaning structures. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 24:345–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moyer D, Carson S, Dye T, Carson R, Goldbaum D (2015) Determining the influence of Reddit posts on Wikipedia pageviews. Proc. Internat. AAAI Conf. Web Soc. Media 9(5):75–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Page S (2019) The Diversity Bonus (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Pelled LH, Eisenhardt KM, Xin KR (1999) Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(1):1–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peus C, Braun S, Frey D (2013) Situation-based measurement of the full range of leadership model—Development and validation of a situational judgment test. Leadership Quart. 24(5):777–795.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Postmes T, Haslam SA, Swaab RI (2005) Social influence in small groups: An interactive model of social identity formation. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psych. 16:1–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rivera MT, Soderstrom SB, Uzzi B (2010) Dynamics of dyads in social networks: Assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 36:91–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenberg S, Nelson C, Vivekananthan PS (1968) A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 9(4):283–294.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salganik MJ, Dodds PS, Watts DJ (2006) Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311(5762):854–856.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Srivastava SB, Banaji MR (2011) Culture, cognition, and collaborative networks in organizations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 76(2):207–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Surowiecki J (2005) The Wisdom of Crowds (Anchor Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Taylor SJ, Muchnik L, Kumar M, Aral S (2023) Identity effects in social media. Nature Human Behav. 7(1):27–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tenenbaum JB, Kemp C, Griffiths TL, Goodman ND (2011) How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science 331(6082):1279–1285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turner JC (1991) Social Influence (Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove, CA).Google Scholar
• Turner JC, Reynolds KJ (2011) Self-categorization theory. Van Lange PAM, Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET, eds. Handbook of Theories in Social Psychology, vol. 2 (SAGE Publications Ltd., London), 399–417.Google Scholar
• Turner JC, Wetherell MS, Hogg MA (1989) Referent informational influence and group polarization. Br. J. Soc. Psych. 28(2):135–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD, Wetherell MS (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• van Loon A, Goldberg A, Srivastava SB (2023) Imagined otherness: Perceived schematic difference fuels dehumanization. Stanford Graduate School of Business Working Paper No. 4116, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Wojcieszak M (2011) Deliberation and attitude polarization. J. Comm. 61(4):596–617.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wood ML, Stoltz DS, Van Ness J, Taylor MA (2018) Schemas and frames. Sociol. Theory 36(3):244–261.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wood W (2000) Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annu. Rev. Psych. 51:539–570.Crossref, Google Scholar