Empirical research

Putting the assumptions about social influence and the macropredictions of social-influence models to the empirical test is very challenging. Here, we point to work that uses different approaches.

Laboratory experiments

• Friedkin, N. E., & Johnsen, E. C. (2011). Social Influence Network Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

• Lorenz, J., Rauhut, H., Schweitzer, F., & Helbing, D. (2011). How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(22), 9020-9025.

• Mäs, M., & Flache, A. (2013). Differentiation without distancing. Explaining bi-polarization of opinions without negative influence. PLoS ONE, 8(11).

Field experiments

• Clemm von Hohenberg, B., Mäs, M., & Pradelski, B. S. R. (2017). Micro Influence and Macro Dynamics of Opinion Formation (SSRN).

Survey data

• Chattoe-Brown, E. (2014). Using Agent Based Modelling to Integrate Data on Attitude Change. Sociological Research Online, 19(1).

• Brousmiche, K.-L., Kant, J.-D., Sabouret, N., & Prenot-Guinard, F. (2016). From Beliefs to Attitudes: Polias, a Model of Attitude Dynamics Based on Cognitive Modeling and Field Data. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 19(4).

• Huet, S., Deffuant, G., Nugier, A., Streith, M., & Guimond, S. (2019). Resisting hostility generated by terror: An agent-based study. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0209907.

SIENA Modeling

• Lewis, K., Gonzaleza, M., & Kaufman, J. (2012). Social selection and peer influence in an online social network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(1), 68–72.

• Stark, T. H., & Flache, A. (2012). The double edge of common interest: Ethnic segregation as an unintended byproduct of opinion homophily. Sociology of Education, 85(2), 179–199.