Our beliefs about the world are generally not formed in isolation: the inherently social nature of human beings means that much of what we believe to know is based, at least in part, on information gained from others. Consequently, human knowledge and its acquisition cannot be fully understood by considering individuals alone. In this paper, we examine the belief dynamics in a group of networked participants engaged in a simple, factual estimation task. Specifically, we examine the extent to which participants revise their own judgments in light of others’ responses, and compare formal models of that process.

Much of what we believe to know, we know through the testimony of others (Coady, 1994). Whether the resultant beliefs constitute knowledge or erroneous beliefs consequently rests directly on the reliability of our sources. While there has been long-standing evidence that people are sensitive to source characteristics, for example in the context of persuasion, exploration of the wider implications of source reliability considerations for the nature of our beliefs has begun only fairly recently. Likewise, much remains to be established concerning what factors influence source reliability. In this paper, we examine, both theoretically and empirically, the implications of using message content as a cue to source reliability.