The building up of individual inflexibility in opinion dynamics

Two models of opinion dynamics are entangled in order to build a more realistic model of inflexibility. The first one is the Galam unifying frame (GUF), which incorporates rational and inflexible agents, and the other one is the Continuous Opinions and Discrete Actions model. While initially in GUF, inflexibility is a fixed given feature of an agent, it is now the result of an accumulation for a given agent who makes the same choice through repeated updates. Inflexibility thus emerges as an internal property of agents becoming a continuous function of the strength of its opinion. Therefore, an agent can be more or less inflexible and can shift from inflexibility along one choice to inflexibility along the opposite choice. These individual dynamics of the building up and falling off of agent inflexibility are driven by the successive local updates of the associated individual opinions. New results are obtained and discussed in terms of predicting outcomes of public debates.

[1]  André C R Martins,et al.  Mobility and social network effects on extremist opinions. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[2]  D. Kahan,et al.  Cultural cognition of scientific consensus , 2011 .

[3]  Dietrich Stauffer.  AIP Conference Proceedings on the Monte Carlo method in the physical sciences, to be edited by J.E. Gubernatis. How to convince others ? Monte Carlo simulations of the Sznajd model , 2003 .

[4]  Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Opinion evolution in closed community , 2000, cond-mat/0101130.

[5]  André C. R. Martins,et al.  The Importance of Disagreeing: Contrarians and Extremism in the Coda Model , 2009, Adv. Complex Syst..

[6]  Europhysics Letters PREPRINT , 2002 .

[7]  Johannes J. Schneider.  The Influence Of Contrarians And Opportunists On The Stability Of A Democracy In The Sznajd Model , 2004 .

[8]  S. Galam.  Rational group decision making: A random field Ising model at T = 0 , 1997, cond-mat/9702163.

[9]  S. Galam,et al.  Chaotic, staggered, and polarized dynamics in opinion forming: The contrarian effect. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[10]  Andre C. R. Martins,et al.  A Bayesian Framework for Opinion Updates , 2008, ArXiv.

[11]  André C. R. Martins,et al.  An opinion dynamics model for the diffusion of innovations , 2008, 0809.5114.

[12]  Serge Galam,et al.  Sociophysics: a personal testimony , 2004, physics/0403122.

[13]  Andre C. R. Martins,et al.  CONTINUOUS OPINIONS AND DISCRETE ACTIONS IN OPINION DYNAMICS PROBLEMS , 2007, 0711.1199.

[14]  Serge Galam,et al.  Opinion Dynamics, Minority Spreading and Heterogeneous Beliefs , 2006 .

[15]  Anirban Chakraborti,et al.  Opinion formation in kinetic exchange models: spontaneous symmetry-breaking transition. , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[16]  André C. R. Martins.  Discrete opinion models as a limit case of the CODA model , 2014 .

[17]  Guillaume Deffuant,et al.  Mixing beliefs among interacting agents , 2000, Adv. Complex Syst..

[18]  Guillaume Deffuant,et al.  Comparing Extremism Propagation Patterns in Continuous Opinion Models , 2006, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[19]  Parongama Sen.  Phase transitions in a two-parameter model of opinion dynamics with random kinetic exchanges. , 2011, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[20]  Karl E. Kürten.  DYNAMICAL PHASE TRANSITIONS IN OPINION NETWORKS: COEXISTENCE OF OPPORTUNISTS AND CONTRARIANS , 2008 .

[21]  W. Edwards,et al.  Conservatism in a simple probability inference task. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[22]  G. Weisbuch,et al.  Persuasion dynamics , 2004, cond-mat/0410200.

[23]  Rainer Hegselmann,et al.  Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: models, analysis and simulation , 2002, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[24]  S. Galam,et al.  Towards a theory of collective phenomena: Consensus and attitude changes in groups , 1991 .

[25]  S. Galam.  Minority opinion spreading in random geometry , 2002, cond-mat/0203553.

[26]  André C. R. Martins,et al.  Discrete Opinion models as a limit case of the CODA model , 2012, ArXiv.

[27]  André C. R. Martins,et al.  Bayesian updating as basis for opinion dynamics models , 2012 .

[28]  Serge Galam,et al.  Collective beliefs versus individual inflexibility: The unavoidable biases of a public debate , 2011 .

[29]  André C. R. Martins.  Modeling Scientific Agents for a Better Science , 2010, Adv. Complex Syst..

[30]  S. Fortunato,et al.  Statistical physics of social dynamics , 2007, 0710.3256.

[31]  S. Galam,et al.  The role of inflexible minorities in the breaking of democratic opinion dynamics , 2007, physics/0703021.

[32]  Serge Galam,et al.  Public debates driven by incomplete scientific data: the cases of evolution theory, global warming and H1N1 pandemic influenza , 2010, ArXiv.

[33]  Li-Xin Zhong,et al.  Effects of contrarians in the minority game. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[34]  S. Galam.  Contrarian deterministic effects on opinion dynamics: “the hung elections scenario” , 2003, cond-mat/0307404.

[35]  S. Galam.  Heterogeneous beliefs, segregation, and extremism in the making of public opinions. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[36]  Serge Galam,et al.  Local dynamics vs. social mechanisms: A unifying frame , 2005 .