Book contents
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Historical Review of Sampling Perspectives and Major Paradigms
- Part II Sampling Mechanisms
- Part III Consequences of Selective Sampling
- Part IV Truncation and Stopping Rules
- Part V Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments
- Chapter 16 Heuristic Social Sampling
- Chapter 17 Social Sampling for Judgments and Predictions of Societal Trends
- Chapter 18 Group-Motivated Sampling
- Chapter 19 Opinion Homogenization and Polarization
- Part VI Computational Approaches
- Index
- References
Chapter 17 - Social Sampling for Judgments and Predictions of Societal Trends
from Part V - Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 June 2023
Book contents
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Historical Review of Sampling Perspectives and Major Paradigms
- Part II Sampling Mechanisms
- Part III Consequences of Selective Sampling
- Part IV Truncation and Stopping Rules
- Part V Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments
- Chapter 16 Heuristic Social Sampling
- Chapter 17 Social Sampling for Judgments and Predictions of Societal Trends
- Chapter 18 Group-Motivated Sampling
- Chapter 19 Opinion Homogenization and Polarization
- Part VI Computational Approaches
- Index
- References
Summary
People have the ability to estimate frequencies of different behaviors, beliefs, and intentions of others, allowing them to fit into their immediate social worlds, learn from, and cooperate with others. However, psychology has produced a long list of apparent biases in social cognition. We show that this apparent contradiction can be resolved by understanding how cognitive processes underlying social judgments interact with the properties of social and task environments. We describe our social sampling model that incorporates this interaction and can explain biases in people’s estimates of broader populations. We also show that asking people about their social circles produces better predictions of elections than asking about their own voting intentions, provides good description of population attributes, and helps predict people’s future voting and vaccination behavior.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making , pp. 385 - 416Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Albert, R., & Barabási, A.-L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74(1), 47–97. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.47Google Scholar
Alicke, M. D., & Govorun, O. (2005). The better-than-average effect. In Alicke, M. D., Dunning, D., & Krueger, J. I. (Eds.), Studies in self and identity: The self in social judgment. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J., & Vredenburg, D. S. (1995). Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5), 804–825. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.804Google Scholar
Alipourfard, N., Nettasinghe, B., Abeliuk, A., Krishnamurthy, V., & Lerman, K. (2020). Friendship paradox biases perceptions in directed networks. Nature Communications, 11(1), 707. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14394-xGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barton, A. H. (1958). Asking the embarrassing question. Public Opinion Quarterly, 22(1), 67–68. https://doi.org/10.1086/266761Google Scholar
Brown, G. D. A., Wood, A. M., Ogden, R. S., & Maltby, J. (2015). Do student evaluations of university reflect inaccurate beliefs or actual experience? A relative rank model. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1827CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruine de Bruin, W., Downs, J. S., Murray, P., & Fischhoff, B. (2010). Can female adolescents tell whether they will test positive for chlamydia infection? Medical Decision Making, 30(2), 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X09343308Google Scholar
Bruine de Bruin, W., Galesic, M., & Bååth, R., et al. (2022). Asking about social circles improves election predictions even with many political parties. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 34(1), edac006. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edac006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruine de Bruin, W., Galesic, M., Parker, A. M., & Vardavas, R. (2020). The role of social circle perceptions in “False Consensus” about population statistics: Evidence from a national flu survey. Medical Decision Making, 40(2), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X20904960CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Can adolescents predict significant life events? Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(2), 208–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.03.014Google Scholar
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., Galesic, M., & Vardavas, R. (2019). Reports of social circles’ and own vaccination behavior: A national longitudinal survey. Health Psychology, 38(11), 975–983. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000771Google Scholar
Burson, K. a, Larrick, R. P., & Klayman, J. (2006). Skilled or unskilled, but still unaware of it: How perceptions of difficulty drive miscalibration in relative comparisons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castellano, C., Fortunato, S., & Loreto, V. (2009). Statistical physics of social dynamics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(2), 591–646. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. R., & Windschitl, P. D. (2004). Biases in social comparative judgments: The role of nonmotivated factors in above-average and comparative-optimism effects. Psychological Bulletin, 130(5), 813–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.813CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(4), 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa066082Google Scholar
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2008). The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(21), 2249–2258. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0706154Google Scholar
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2010). Connected: The amazing power of social networks and how they shape our lives. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika, 72(2), 263–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-006-1560-6Google Scholar
CNN. (2016). Poll: Most see a Hillary Clinton victory and a fair count ahead. www.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-election-poll/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Cohen, R., Havlin, S., & Ben-Avraham, D. (2003). Efficient immunization strategies for computer networks and populations. Physical Review Letters, 91(24), 247901. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.247901Google Scholar
Coleman, J. S. (1958). Relational analysis: The study of social organizations with survey methods. Human Organization, 17(4), 28–36.Google Scholar
Dawes, R. M., & Mulford, M. (1996). The false consensus effect and overconfidence: Flaws in judgment or flaws in how we study judgment? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0020Google Scholar
Easley, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2010). Networks, crowds, and markets. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (2008). Why the unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 98–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.002Google Scholar
Enns, P. K., Lagodny, J., & Schuldt, J. P. (2017). Understanding the 2016 US presidential polls: The importance of hidden Trump supporters. Statistics, Politics and Policy, 8(1), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2017-0003Google Scholar
Feld, S. L. (1991). Why your friends have more friends than you do. American Journal of Sociology, 96(6), 1464–1477. https://doi.org/10.1086/229693Google Scholar
Feld, S. L., & McGail, A. (2020). Egonets as systematically biased windows on society. Network Science, 8(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2020.5Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K. (1996). Explaining and simulating judgment biases as an aggregation phenomenon in probabilistic, multiple-cue environments. Psychological Review, 103(1), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.103.1.193Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107(4), 659–676. https://doi.org/I0.I0371/0033-295X.I07.4.659Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., & Juslin, P. (Eds.) (2006). Information sampling and adaptive cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frable, D. E. S. (1993). Being and feeling unique: Statistical deviance and psychological marginality. Journal of Personality, 61(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00280.xGoogle Scholar
Galesic, M., Bruine de Bruin, W., & Dalege, J., et al. (2021). Human social sensing is an untapped resource for computational social science. Nature, 595(7866), 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03649-2Google Scholar
Galesic, M., Bruine de Bruin, W., & Dumas, M., et al. (2018). Asking about social circles improves election predictions. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(3), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0302-yGoogle Scholar
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., Dalege, J., van der Does, T., & Stein, D. L. (2021). Integrating social and cognitive aspects of belief dynamics: Towards a unifying framework. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 18(176), rsif.2020.0857. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2020.0857CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2012). Social sampling explains apparent biases in judgments of social environments. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1515–1523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612445313CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2013). False consensus about false consensus. In Knauff, M., Pauen, M., Sebanz, N., & Wachsmuth, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 472–476). Berlin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2018). A sampling model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 125(3), 363–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000096Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Fiedler, K., & Olsson, H. (2012). Rethinking cognitive biases as environmental consequences. In Todd, P. M., Gigerenzer, G., & Research Group, ABC (Eds.), Ecological rationality: Intelligence in the world (pp. 80–110). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Graefe, A. (2014). Accuracy of vote expectation surveys in forecasting elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(S1), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckathorn, D. D., & Jeffri, J. (2001). Finding the beat: Using respondent-driven sampling to study jazz musicians. Poetics, 28(4), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(01)80006-1Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., & Hoffrage, U. (Eds.). (2013). Simple heuristics in a social world. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., Pachur, T., & Kurzenhäuser, S. (2005). Judgments of risk frequencies: Tests of possible cognitive mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(4), 621–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.4.621Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, R. R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurd, M. D., & McGarry, K. (2002). The predictive validity of subjective probabilities of survival. Economic Journal, 112(482), 966–985. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00065Google Scholar
Jackson, M. O. (2010). Social and economic networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jordan, A. H., Monin, B., & Dweck, C. S., et al. (2011). Misery has more company than people think: Underestimating the prevalence of others’ negative emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210390822Google Scholar
Juslin, P., Olsson, H., & Björkman, M. (1997). Brunswikian and Thurstonian origins of bias in probability assessment: On the interpretation of stochastic components of judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10(3), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199709)10:3<189::AID-BDM258>3.3.CO;2-W3.0.CO;2-4>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juslin, P., & Persson, M. (2002). PROBabilities from EXemplars (PROBEX): A “lazy” algorithm for probabilistic inference from generic knowledge. Cognitive Science, 26, 563–607. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2605_2Google Scholar
Juslin, P., Wennerholm, P., & Olsson, H. (1999). Format dependence in subjective probability calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 1038–1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.4.1038Google Scholar
Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Hansson, P. (2007). The naïve intuitive statistician: A naïve sampling model of intuitive confidence intervals. Psychological Review, 114(3), 678–703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.678Google Scholar
Jussim, L. (2012). Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kendal, R. L., Boogert, N. J., Rendell, L., Laland, K. N., Webster, M., & Jones, P. L., (2018). Social learning strategies: Bridge-building between fields. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(7), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.04.003Google Scholar
Kennedy, C., Blumenthal, M., & Clement, S., et al. (2018). An evaluation of the 2016 election polls in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx047Google Scholar
Krueger, J. I., & Clement, R. W. (1994). The truly false consensus effect: An ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 596–610. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.596Google Scholar
Krueger, J. I., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Towards a balanced social psychology: Causes, consequences, and cures for the problem-seeking approach to social behavior and cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 313–376. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000081Google Scholar
Krueger, J. I., & Mueller, R. A. (2002). Unskilled, unaware, or both? The better-than-average heuristic and statistical regression predict errors in estimates of own performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 180–188. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.2.180Google Scholar
Kruger, J. (1999). Lake wobegon be gone! The “below-average effect” and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 221–232.Google Scholar
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Mens, G., & Denrell, J. (2011). Rational learning and information sampling: On the “naivety” assumption in sampling explanations of judgment biases. Psychological Review, 118(2), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023010Google Scholar
Lee, E., Karimi, F., & Wagner, C., et al. (2019). Homophily and minority-group size explain perception biases in social networks. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(10), 1078–1087. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0677-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehrer, R., Juhl, S., & Gschwend, T. (2019). The wisdom of crowds design for sensitive survey questions. Electoral Studies, 57 (September 2018), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.09.012Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Skalaban, A. (1989). Citizen forecasting: Can voters see into the future? British Journal of Political Science, 19(1), 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712340000538XGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Tien, C. (1999). Voters as forecasters: A micromodel of election prediction. International Journal of Forecasting, 15(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(98)00063-6Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(6), 551–578. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.551Google Scholar
Lindskog, M., Winman, A., & Juslin, P. (2012). Naïve point estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 782–800. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029670Google Scholar
Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.165Google Scholar
Lopes, L. L. (1992). Risk perception and the perceived public. In Bromley, D. & Segerson, K. (Eds.), The social response to environmental risk (pp. 57–74). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2954-1_3Google Scholar
Lynn, C. W., & Bassett, D. S. (2020). How humans learn and represent networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(47), 29407–29415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912328117Google Scholar
Marks, G., & Miller, N. (1987). Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 102(1), 72–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415Google Scholar
Moore, D. A., & Small, D. A. (2007). Error and bias in comparative judgment: On being both better and worse than we think we are. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 972–989. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.972Google Scholar
Mullen, B., Dovidio, J. F., Johnson, C., & Copper, C. (1992). In-group–out-group differences in social projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(5), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90040-QGoogle Scholar
Murr, A. E. (2016). The wisdom of crowds: What do citizens forecast for the 2015 British general election? Electoral Studies, 41, 283–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.018Google Scholar
Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45(2), 167–256. https://doi.org/10.1137/S003614450342480Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Kunda, Z. (1985). Perception of social distributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.297Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M., Cao, R., Cox, G. E., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2014). Familiarity and categorization processes in memory search. Cognitive Psychology, 75, 97–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.08.003Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104(2), 266–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.266Google Scholar
Olsson, H., Barman-Adhikari, A., Galesic, M., Hsu, H.-T., & Rice, E. (2021). Cognitive strategies for peer judgments https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/s3hxjGoogle Scholar
Olsson, H., Bruine de Bruin, W., Galesic, M., & Prelec, D. (2022). Combining survey questions with a Bayesian bootstrap method improves election forecasts. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/nqcgsGoogle Scholar
Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., & Rieskamp, J. (2013). Intuitive judgments of social statistics: How exhaustive does sampling need to be? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1059–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.004Google Scholar
Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., & Steinmann, F. (2012). How do people judge risks: Availability heuristic, affect heuristic, or both? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 314–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028279Google Scholar
Parker, A. M., Vardavas, R., Marcum, C. S., & Gidengil, C. A. (2013). Conscious consideration of herd immunity in influenza vaccination decisions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45(1), 118–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.02.016Google Scholar
Roese, N. J., & Olson, J. M. (2007). Better, stronger, faster: Self-serving judgment, affect regulation, and the optimal vigilance hypothesis. Psychological Science, 2(2), 124–141.Google Scholar
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-XGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, D. M., & Wolfers, J. (2011). Forecasting elections: Voter intentions versus expectations. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1884644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santoro, L., & Beck, P. A. (2017). Social networks and vote choice. In Victor, J. N., Montgomery, A. H., & Lubell, M. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks (pp. 383–406). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schulze, C., Hertwig, R., & Pachur, T. (2021). Who you know is what you know: Modeling boundedly rational social sampling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(2), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000799Google Scholar
Schwing, R. C., & Kamerud, D. B. (1988). The distribution of risks: Vehicle occupant fatalities and time of the week. Risk Analysis, 8(1), 127–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01159.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalizi, C. R., & Thomas, A. C. (2011). Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociological Methods & Research, 40(2), 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124111404820Google Scholar
Signorile, V., & O’Shea, R. M. (1965). A test of significance for the homophily index. American Journal of Sociology, 70(4), 467–470. https://doi.org/10.1086/223880Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.000245Google Scholar
Sinclair, B. (2012). The social citizen: Peer networks and political behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.003Google Scholar
Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Asking questions: A practical guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00191Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193Google Scholar
Tompson, S. H., Kahn, A. E., Falk, E. B., Vettel, J. M., & Bassett, D. S. (2019). Individual differences in learning social and nonsocial network structures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(2), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000580Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. T., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watts, D. J. (2004). Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar