IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2608.24851.html

Learning Whom to Trust : Decision-Generated Credibility in Social Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriel Bontemps
  • Abhishek Banerjee

Abstract

Social interaction can improve collective learning but also amplify early mistakes. We study this tension when the credibility of social information is generated by the sender's own decision process rather than fixed ex ante. Reinforcement-learning agents make binary choices through a drift--diffusion process that jointly determines choice, decision time, and confidence; decision confidence then becomes social credibility by weighting anticipatory influence and retrospective social learning. Under balanced community exposure, the anticipatory field admits an exact quotient representation. Its local Jacobian is a scalar decision-sensitivity term multiplying the community-coupling matrix, which yields a common-mode amplification threshold and an analytical role for cross-community permeability in damping relative community differences. Monte Carlo experiments show the corresponding non-monotone performance pattern: moderate transmission accelerates correction, whereas strong transmission can lock populations into wrong consensus; low permeability instead sustains disagreement. Ablations reveal a dual role for confidence: credibility-sensitive transmission amplifies social error, while confidence-dependent private learning stabilises it. The model yields testable predictions linking sender confidence to receiver behaviour conditional on accuracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriel Bontemps & Abhishek Banerjee, 2026. "Learning Whom to Trust : Decision-Generated Credibility in Social Learning," Papers 2608.24851, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2608.24851
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.24851
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2002. "Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(3), pages 1-2.
    2. Bin A. Wang & Maike Veismann & Abhishek Banerjee & Burkhard Pleger, 2023. "Human orbitofrontal cortex signals decision outcomes to sensory cortex during behavioral adaptations," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Sophia Horn & Sven Banisch & Veronika Batzdorfer & Andreas Reitenbach & Fabio Sartori & Daniel Schwabe & Michael Mäs, 2026. "Success-Driven User Activity Contributes to Online Polarization," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 29(2), pages 1-1.
    4. Volker Grimm & Steven F. Railsback & Christian E. Vincenot & Uta Berger & Cara Gallagher & Donald L. DeAngelis & Bruce Edmonds & Jiaqi Ge & Jarl Giske & Jürgen Groeneveld & Alice S.A. Johnston & Alex, 2020. "The ODD Protocol for Describing Agent-Based and Other Simulation Models: A Second Update to Improve Clarity, Replication, and Structural Realism," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 23(2), pages 1-7.
    5. Bikhchandani, Sushil & Hirshleifer, David & Welch, Ivo, 1992. "A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change in Informational Cascades," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(5), pages 992-1026, October.
    6. Drew Fudenberg & Philipp Strack & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2018. "Speed, Accuracy, and the Optimal Timing of Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(12), pages 3651-3684, December.
    7. Abhijit V. Banerjee, 1992. "A Simple Model of Herd Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(3), pages 797-817.
    8. Andreas Flache & Michael Mäs & Thomas Feliciani & Edmund Chattoe-Brown & Guillaume Deffuant & Sylvie Huet & Jan Lorenz, 2017. "Models of Social Influence: Towards the Next Frontiers," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(4), pages 1-2.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2020. "A Survey on Nonstrategic Models of Opinion Dynamics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-29, December.
    2. Buechel, Berno & Hellmann, Tim & Klößner, Stefan, 2015. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under conformity," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 240-257.
    3. Cary Frydman & Ian Krajbich, 2022. "Using Response Times to Infer Others’ Private Information: An Application to Information Cascades," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2970-2986, April.
    4. Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Taalaibekova, Akylai, 2019. "Opinion formation and targeting when persuaders have extreme and centrist opinions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 9-27.
    5. Michel Grabisch & Antoine Mandel & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Emily Tanimura, 2015. "Strategic influence in social networks," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01158168, HAL.
    6. Pietro Battiston & Luca Stanca, 2014. "Boundedly Rational Opinion Dynamics in Directed Social Networks: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 267, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Jan 2014.
    7. Christian Ganser & Marc Keuschnigg, 2018. "Social Influence Strengthens Crowd Wisdom Under Voting," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-23, September.
    8. Catherine A. Glass & David H. Glass, 2021. "Social Influence of Competing Groups and Leaders in Opinion Dynamics," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 58(3), pages 799-823, October.
    9. Michel Grabisch & Antoine Mandel & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Emily Tanimura, 2018. "Strategic Influence in Social Networks," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 43(1), pages 29-50, February.
    10. Glass, Catherine A. & Glass, David H., 2021. "Opinion dynamics of social learning with a conflicting source," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    11. Alvarez, Emiliano & Brida, Juan Gabriel, 2019. "What about the others? Consensus and equilibria in the presence of self-interest and conformity in social groups," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 518(C), pages 285-298.
    12. Gu, Chen & Guo, Xu & Zhang, Chengping, 2022. "Analyst target price revisions and institutional herding," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    13. Ruomeng Cui & Dennis J. Zhang & Achal Bassamboo, 2019. "Learning from Inventory Availability Information: Evidence from Field Experiments on Amazon," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 1216-1235, March.
    14. Jonas Hedlund & Carlos Oyarzun, 2018. "Imitation in heterogeneous populations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(4), pages 937-973, June.
    15. Cao, Melanie & Shi, Shouyong, 2006. "Signaling in the Internet craze of initial public offerings," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 818-833, September.
    16. Wei He & Qian Wang, 2020. "The peer effect of corporate financial decisions around split share structure reform in China," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 474-493, July.
    17. Kraemer, Carlo & Noth, Markus & Weber, Martin, 2006. "Information aggregation with costly information and random ordering: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 423-432, March.
    18. Fishman, Arthur & Fishman, Ram & Gneezy, Uri, 2019. "A tale of two food stands: Observational learning in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 101-108.
    19. Jacob K. Goeree & Leeat Yariv, 2015. "Conformity in the lab," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 15-28, July.
    20. Boğaçhan Çelen & Kyle Hyndman, 2012. "An experiment of social learning with endogenous timing," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 16(2), pages 251-268, September.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2608.24851. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.