nucleation

LIT-1482: A Theory of the Evolution of Social Power: Natural Trajectories of Interpersonal Influence Systems along Issue Sequences

2 min read

Properties6
StatusActive — read in full 2026-10-24 (NOTE-1126) from the CC BY version of record and its online supplement; worth reading as the first experiment long enough (30 groups of four, 15 issues each) to look for social power evolving along an issue sequence. A member's self-reported closure on the next issue rose with their prior influence, and influence networks thinned and discussions shortened, while the rate of consensus did not change. Its single-issue model is Friedkin–Johnsen, not DeGroot; closure and influence come from one self-report, and prior closure is not controlled.
Version2
Tagssocial-science, network-science
SupportsCLAIM-448 — An ordinal potential describes only the winning-move relation it is computed on; where an organization's legibility regime selects which contests are admitted or recorded, an acyclic record, even a persistent potential, can be the product of selective contestation, so observed coherence is not evidence that the organization's perspectives are integrated, and an intervention that improves its self-governance may at first increase the disagreement observed
Cited as “paper” byNOTE-1126 — Friedkin, Jia & Bullo — A theory of the evolution of social power
Cited as “source” byTHEORY-1212 — In 30 four-person student groups discussing 15 choice dilemmas, a member's self-reported closure to influence on the next issue rose with their influence over prior outcomes, increasingly so along the sequence, and the groups' influence networks thinned and their discussions shortened while the rate of consensus did not change: evidence for a reflected-appraisal step by which influence concentrates in deliberating groups, THEORY-902 — In Friedkin, Jia and Bullo's study of 30 four-person student groups discussing 15 choice dilemmas, a member's self-reported closure to influence on the next issue rose with their influence centrality on the previous issue, an effect constant along the sequence, and with their average centrality over all prior issues, an effect that grew along it; influence networks thinned and discussions shortened while the rate of consensus did not change. Closure and centrality both come from the members' own chip allocations, and prior closure is not controlled

Graph View

Friedkin, N. E., Jia, P. & Bullo, F. (2016). A theory of the evolution of social power: Natural trajectories of interpersonal influence systems along issue sequences. Sociological Science 3: 444–472. doi:10.15195/v3.a20.

Key takeaways

From the reading, NOTE-1126. Page numbers are the journal’s; S for the supplement.

  • The mechanism. “Success in influencing group issue outcomes elevates the individual’s self-weight” (p. 445): closure on the next issue is set by influence centrality on the last.
  • In simulation, autocracy. Even with who-influences-whom redrawn at random every issue, all 14,000 simulated systems converged to one closed member, though disturbances can change who (S1–S2).
  • In the laboratory, the individual step. In 30 four-person student groups over 15 choice dilemmas, prior centrality predicted next-issue closure, more strongly for cumulative centrality as the sequence went on (Tables 2–3, pp. 457–458).
  • Structure shifted; consensus did not. Networks thinned (84% to 67% density by issue 11) and discussions shortened, but “In our data, the probability of reaching consensus does not alter along the issue sequence” (p. 467).
  • Efficiency is not quality. The account does not address “whether the evolution of a group toward greater efficiency is associated with a decrease or increase of collective intelligence” (S11).

Why this is here

The exchange cited it at turn U19 as the laboratory support for DeGroot–Friedkin social-power dynamics, whose model is held as LIT-1146 and whose single-author precursor is LIT-1404. The abstract confirms that it reports experiments consistent with the theory.

Corrected 2026-10-24, from the reading. Two corrections. The experiment’s model of each discussion is Friedkin–Johnsen, with members anchored to their initial opinions, not DeGroot; its predicted attractor is a single closed member, where the DeGroot–Friedkin model of LIT-1146 predicts power ordered by centrality and autocracy only for a star. And what the laboratory supports is the individual step, closure following prior influence, with structural trends; the predicted end state was not reached. For CLAIM-448 it supports the self-reinforcing baseline and the point that faster settlement is not better integration. Filed from it: THEORY-902.

Backlinks