tualizes distinct dimensions of opinion and rhetoric: opinion is an evaluation directly tied to a decision or other behavioral outcome of interest while rhetoric determines whether messages aimed at shifting opinions are found persuasive. Consequently, the ASC model can generate systematic shifts toward the extreme due to the structure of the decision problem rather than by privileging initial conditions that correlate influence with extremity as typically assumed in opinion network modeling. $^{1}$RIA differs from the “rhetorical asymmetry” of Schkade, Sunstein, and Kahneman (2000) which states that it is easier to argue in favor of one direction of a policy, an anisotropy that operates even at the dyadic level whereas RIA affects majority formation. $^{2}$Unlike power laws, the other main form, exponential utility functions are well- behaved near zero, a possibility in our experiment. $^{3}$As indicated in Figure 1, we refer to the transformation of the neutral point of the rhetorical issue onto the policy axis simply as the “rhetorical reference.” The policy reference is always zero. $^{4}$The communication weights are normalized so that they sum to the same (arbi- trary) value in both networks. $^{5}$This human subjects research was approved by the University of Washington In- stitutional Review Board and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency Research Over- sight Board. $^{6}$A total of $6756.50 was donated. $^{7}$To check for the possible effects of non-normal distributions, nonparametric test- ing was conducted. Very similar results to Table 1 were obtained (see Supplementary Notes 38