Paper detail

Detection of non-self-correcting nature of information cascade

We propose a method of detecting non-self-correcting information cascades in experiments in which subjects choose an option sequentially by observing the choices of previous subjects. The method uses the correlation function $C(t)$ between the first and the $t+1$-th subject's choices. $C(t)$ measures the strength of the domino effect, and the limit value $c\equiv \lim_{t\to \infty}C(t)$ determines whether the domino effect lasts forever $(c>0)$ or not $(c=0)$. The condition $c>0$ is an adequate condition for a non-self-correcting system, and the probability that the majority's choice remains wrong in the limit $t\to \infty$ is positive. We apply the method to data from two experiments in which $T$ subjects answered two-choice questions: (i) general knowledge questions ($T_{avg}=60$) and (ii) urn-choice questions ($T=63$). We find $c>0$ for difficult questions in (i) and all cases in (ii), and the systems are not self-correcting.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.