Santa Fe
Institute
  • Research
    • Themes
    • Projects
    • SFI Press
    • Researchers
    • Publications
    • Library
    • Sponsored Research
    • Fellowships
    • Miller Scholarships
  • News + Events
    • News
    • Newsletters
    • Podcasts
    • SFI in the Media
    • Media Center
    • Events
    • Community
    • Journalism Fellowship
  • Education
    • Programs
    • Projects
    • Alumni
    • Complexity Explorer
    • Education FAQ
    • Postdoctoral Research
    • Education Supporters
  • People
    • Researchers
    • Fractal Faculty
    • Staff
    • Miller Scholars
    • Trustees
    • Governance
    • Resident Artists
    • Research Supporters
  • Applied Complexity
    • Office
    • Applied Projects
    • ACtioN
    • Applied Fellows
    • Studios
    • Applied Events
    • Login
  • Give
    • Give Now
    • Ways to Give
    • Contact
  • About
    • About SFI
    • Engage
    • Complex Systems
    • FAQ
    • Campuses
    • Jobs
    • Contact
    • Library
    • Employee Portal

Science for a Complex World

Events

Here's what's happening

Give

You make SFI possible

Subscribe

Sign up for research news

Connect

Follow us on social media

© 2026 Santa Fe Institute. All rights reserved. This site is supported by the Miller Omega Program.

Home / News

A small circle of friends: How we see the world depends on who surrounds us

May 9, 2018

As we move through the world in our daily lives, we humans make judgments about ourselves and others, assessing our thoughts and status against what we perceive around us. You may think you’re doing far better, or far worse than everyone else. It can seem that everyone sees the world just like you, or the opposite: that your ideas are totally unique. 

These social judgments can appear contradictory, but a new Social Sampling Model (SSM), published in Psychological Review, suggests they can be explained by a single quantitative theory. The authors — SFI Professor Mirta Galesic, External Professor Henrik Olsson, and Jörg Rieskamp (Professor at University of Basel) — say social judgments depend largely on the composition of people’s social circles. 

“Our social circles— our friends and family — are often the only sources of information we have about different characteristics of a broader social world, such as frequency of health problems or conflicts with a partner,” says Olsson. This means that the same cognitive process will produce different judgments about broader populations depending on people’s social circles.

For example, Democrats might think that their views are more prevalent in the general population than Republicans do. However, SSM predicts that this will only occur for people whose friends tend to share their views. For Democrats who have more diverse social circles, the effect can be reversed: they can think that their views are more rare in the overall population than Republicans do. The authors find evidence for these and other SSM predictions in several empirical studies.

To understand when and why biased social judgments occur, we need to study how individual cognitive processes interact with the structure of social networks. Previous explanations of social judgments have often focused on only one of these aspects of complex social systems.  

Galesic gives this analogy: “Consider two chefs who use the same recipe for salsa but with peppers from different regions. Their salsas could end up tasting quite differently. Without recognizing the difference in peppers, one might think that the chefs have used different recipes. Similarly, two people can rely on the same cognitive process to make social judgments about the overall population, but if they rely on different social circles, they could end up with different judgments.”

Better understanding the roots of social judgment has important implications for establishing public policies and for individual decisions. The way we perceive our social worlds will affect how we judge our own situation and how we set our personal goals. It can also affect our beliefs about what public policies (e.g. those aimed at wealth redistribution or reduced immigration) a society needs, say Galesic and Olsson.

Read "A sampling model of social judgment.​​" in Psychological Review (April 2018)





Share
  • Sign Up For SFI News
News Media Contact

Santa Fe Institute

Office of Communications
news@santafe.edu
505-984-8800



  • Tags
  • SFI News Release
  • Research


  • Related Projects
  • The science of belief change


More SFI News

View All News

A review of "The Traveler"

Of midterms, mayors, and complex political identity

Random walks get pushy

The complexity of scientific optimism: A review of "It Could Be Otherwise"

Change the number of searchers, change the efficiency of a quest

Modeling social inequality in epidemics

SFI welcomes 2026 External Professors

Implicit biases are harder to change in big cities than in small cities

New study examines publication trends at top journals

Coordinating international operations with “Space Diplomacy”

Multiroute Pathogen Transmission is Different

Allison Stanger named a 2026–27 Berlin Prize Fellow

In Memoriam: Peter Schuster

Cooperation both protects and weakens societies

Kaleda Denton selected as a “Rising Star in Computational and Data Sciences”

Andreas Wagner awarded ERC Advanced Grant

SFI Professors Give Judges Advice on AI

John Krakauer named director of Champalimaud's Centre for Restorative Neurotechnology

Book Review: "Tipping out of Trouble: How Societies Transformed and How We Can Do So Again"

In Memoriam: Jim Rutt