Impact of memory on opinion dynamics

Abstract We investigate an agent-based model of opinion dynamics with two types of social response: conformity and independence. Conformity is introduced to the model analogously as in the Sznajd model or q -voter model, which means that only unanimous group exerts peer pressure on individuals. The novelty, in relation to previous versions of the q -voter model, is memory possessed by each agent and external noise T , which plays the role of social temperature. Each agent has its own memories of past experiences related to the social costs and benefits of being independent or conformist. If an agent was awarded in past more for being independent, it will have a greater tendency to be independent than conformist and vice versa. We will show that depending on the social temperature T the system spontaneously organizes into one of two regimes. Below a certain critical social temperature T c , all agents in the society acquire personal traits (so called person state). Some of them become permanent conformists and others start to behave forever independently. This means that initially homogeneous population becomes heterogeneous, and agents respond differently to social influence. For T > T c , all agents with equal probabilities behave independently or conform to peer pressure (so called situation state). This regime change between person and situation state, which reminds the idea of an annealed vs. quenched disorder, affects also public opinion. Particularly interesting results are obtained for individualistic societies, in which public opinion is non-monotonic function of T , which means that there is an optimal social temperature for which an agreement in the society is the highest.

[1]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind , 1991 .

[2]  Richard E. Lucas,et al.  Introduction to personality and assessment at age 40: Reflections on the legacy of the person–situation debate and the future of person–situation integration , 2009 .

[3]  Alma T. Mintu Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind , 1992 .

[4]  Guy Theraulaz,et al.  Phase diagram of a model of self-organizing hierarchies , 1995 .

[5]  P. Clifford,et al.  A model for spatial conflict , 1973 .

[6]  Taro Takaguchi,et al.  Voter model with non-Poissonian inter-event intervals , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[7]  D. Kahneman A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. , 2003, The American psychologist.

[8]  André C. R. Martins,et al.  The building up of individual inflexibility in opinion dynamics , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[9]  Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron,et al.  The diamond model of social response within an agent-based approach , 2016 .

[10]  S. Galam Sociophysics: A Physicist's Modeling of Psycho-political Phenomena , 2012 .

[11]  B. Latané,et al.  From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. , 1990 .

[12]  Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Turning green: Agent-based modeling of the adoption of dynamic electricity tariffs , 2014 .

[13]  F. Schweitzer,et al.  Decelerating microdynamics can accelerate macrodynamics in the voter model. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[14]  C. F. Anderson,et al.  Majority rule. , 2007, Texas dental journal.

[15]  Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Phase transitions in the q-voter model with noise on a duplex clique. , 2015, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[16]  S. Galam Social paradoxes of majority rule voting and renormalization group , 1990 .

[17]  R. Weron,et al.  Is the Person-Situation Debate Important for Agent-Based Modeling and Vice-Versa? , 2014, PloS one.

[18]  G. Wolford,et al.  Evaluations of pleasurable experiences: The peak-end rule , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[19]  Rosemary J. Harris,et al.  Random walkers with extreme value memory: modelling the peak-end rule , 2015, 1502.03499.

[20]  D. Kahneman,et al.  When More Pain Is Preferred to Less: Adding a Better End , 1993 .

[21]  E. J. Leeuwen,et al.  Conformity , 2018, The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology.

[22]  Patryk Siedlecki,et al.  The Interplay Between Conformity and Anticonformity and its Polarizing Effect on Society , 2016, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[23]  M. A. Muñoz,et al.  Nonlinear q-voter model. , 2009, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

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

[25]  A. Kowalska-Pyzalska What makes consumers adopt to innovative energy services in the energy market? A review of incentives and barriers , 2016 .

[26]  K. Kacperski,et al.  Phase transitions and hysteresis in a cellular automata-based model of opinion formation , 1996 .

[27]  Bikas K. Chakrabarti,et al.  Sociophysics: An Introduction , 2014 .

[28]  André M Timpanaro,et al.  Analytical expression for the exit probability of the q-voter model in one dimension. , 2014, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[29]  Duncan J Watts,et al.  A simple model of global cascades on random networks , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Person-Situation Debate Revisited: Phase Transitions with Quenched and Annealed Disorders , 2017, Entropy.

[31]  D. Stauffer,et al.  Bonabeau model on a fully connected graph , 2006 .

[32]  Tyll Krüger,et al.  Conformity, Anticonformity and Polarization of Opinions: Insights from a Mathematical Model of Opinion Dynamics , 2016, Entropy.

[33]  Subhadeep Chakraborty,et al.  Modeling and numerical simulations of the influenced Sznajd model. , 2017, Physical review. E.

[34]  K. Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Anticonformity or Independence?—Insights from Statistical Physics , 2013 .

[35]  S. Galam From 2000 Bush–Gore to 2006 Italian elections: voting at fifty-fifty and the contrarian effect , 2007, physics/0703095.

[36]  Melissa R. Michelson Memory and Voter Mobilization , 2014, Polity.

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

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

[39]  Krzysztof Suchecki,et al.  Voter model dynamics in complex networks: Role of dimensionality, disorder, and degree distribution. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[40]  Serge Gallam Majority rule, hierarchical structures, and democratic totalitarianism: a statistical approach , 1986 .

[41]  Mauro Mobilia,et al.  Nonlinear $q$-voter model with inflexible zealots , 2015, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[42]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Memories of colonoscopy: a randomized trial , 2003, Pain.

[43]  Andrew Mellor,et al.  Characterization of the nonequilibrium steady state of a heterogeneous nonlinear q-voter model with zealotry , 2016, ArXiv.

[44]  Tian Qiu,et al.  A generalized voter model with time-decaying memory on a multilayer network , 2016 .

[45]  Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Phase transitions in the q-voter model with two types of stochastic driving. , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[46]  Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Linking Consumer Opinions with Reservation Prices in an Agent-Based Model of Innovation Diffusion , 2016 .

[47]  Luca Dall'Asta,et al.  Effective surface-tension in the noise-reduced voter model , 2006, cond-mat/0612186.

[48]  Romualdo Pastor-Satorras,et al.  Mean-Field Analysis of the q-Voter Model on Networks , 2013, 1301.7563.

[49]  Frank Schweitzer,et al.  Phase transitions in social impact models of opinion formation , 2000 .

[50]  K. Sznajd-Weron Sznajd model and its applications , 2005, physics/0503239.

[51]  S. Fiske,et al.  Social Psychology , 2019, Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences.

[52]  André M Timpanaro,et al.  Exit probability of the one-dimensional q-voter model: analytical results and simulations for large networks. , 2013, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[53]  Marco Alberto Javarone,et al.  Conformism-driven phases of opinion formation on heterogeneous networks: the q-voter model case , 2014, 1410.7300.

[54]  Yasmin Merali,et al.  Fitness voter model: Damped oscillations and anomalous consensus. , 2017, Physical review. E.

[55]  Eve Passerini,et al.  Statistical mechanics of opinion formation and collective behavior: Micro‐sociology , 1998 .

[56]  Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Difficulty is critical: The importance of social factors in modeling diffusion of green products and practices , 2016 .

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

[58]  Liu Yun Modeling and Simulation of Consensus Formation with Individual Memory , 2011 .

[59]  Arkadiusz Jędrzejewski,et al.  Pair approximation for the q-voter model with independence on complex networks. , 2016, Physical review. E.