The impact of noise and topology on opinion dynamics in social networks

We investigate the impact of noise and topology on opinion diversity in social networks. We do so by extending well-established models of opinion dynamics to a stochastic setting where agents are subject both to assimilative forces by their local social interactions, as well as to idiosyncratic factors preventing their population from reaching consensus. We model the latter to account for both scenarios where noise is entirely exogenous to peer influence and cases where it is instead endogenous, arising from the agents' desire to maintain some uniqueness in their opinions. We derive a general analytical expression for opinion diversity, which holds for any network and depends on the network's topology through its spectral properties alone. Using this expression, we find that opinion diversity decreases as communities and clusters are broken down. We test our predictions against data describing empirical influence networks between major news outlets and find that incorporating our measure in linear models for the sentiment expressed by such sources on a variety of topics yields a notable improvement in terms of explanatory power.

[1]  S. Hobolt,et al.  Unity in diversity? Polarization, issue diversity and satisfaction with democracy , 2019, Domestic Contestation of the European Union.

[2]  Claire Cardie,et al.  A Measure of Polarization on Social Media Networks Based on Community Boundaries , 2013, ICWSM.

[3]  Noah E. Friedkin,et al.  Social influence and opinions , 1990 .

[4]  Evimaria Terzi,et al.  Measuring and moderating opinion polarization in social networks , 2017, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

[5]  Noah E. Friedkin,et al.  Cultural Reception and Production , 2012 .

[6]  Aristides Gionis,et al.  Quantifying Controversy on Social Media , 2018, ACM Trans. Soc. Comput..

[7]  Anwar Sadat Shimul,et al.  Uniqueness and status consumption in Generation Y consumers: Does moderation exist? , 2017 .

[8]  M. Brewer The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time , 1991 .

[9]  C. Granger Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods , 1969 .

[10]  Denis McQuail,et al.  Diversity as a Media Policy Goal: a Strategy for Evaluative Research and a Netherlands Case Study , 1983 .

[11]  R. Imhoff,et al.  Too special to be duped: Need for uniqueness motivates conspiracy beliefs. , 2017 .

[12]  Peter Duggins,et al.  Modeling Attitude Change from Political Dialogues , 2014, ArXiv.

[13]  Xi Chen,et al.  Quantifying and Minimizing Risk of Conflict in Social Networks , 2018, KDD.

[14]  C. Granger Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods , 1969 .

[15]  Peter Duggins,et al.  A Psychologically-Motivated Model of Opinion Change with Applications to American Politics , 2014, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[16]  A. J. Morales,et al.  Measuring Political Polarization: Twitter shows the two sides of Venezuela , 2015, Chaos.

[17]  Jacob Ratkiewicz,et al.  Detecting and Tracking Political Abuse in Social Media , 2011, ICWSM.

[18]  Richard van der Wurff Do audiences receive diverse ideas from news media? Exposure to a variety of news media and personal characteristics as determinants of diversity as received , 2011 .

[19]  Raul Toral,et al.  Noisy continuous-opinion dynamics , 2009, 0906.0441.

[20]  Brian W. Rogers,et al.  The Oxford handbook of the economics of networks , 2016 .

[21]  Diana C. Mutz,et al.  Facilitating Communication across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media , 2001, American Political Science Review.

[22]  Giacomo Livan,et al.  A network perspective on intermedia agenda-setting , 2020, Appl. Netw. Sci..

[23]  Charalampos E. Tsourakakis,et al.  Minimizing Polarization and Disagreement in Social Networks , 2017, WWW.

[24]  Lei Guo Media Agenda Diversity and Intermedia Agenda Setting in a Controlled Media Environment: A Computational Analysis of China’s Online News , 2019, Journalism Studies.

[25]  Mengbin Ye,et al.  Recent Advances in the Modelling and Analysis of Opinion Dynamics on Influence Networks , 2019, Int. J. Autom. Comput..

[26]  M. Degroot Reaching a Consensus , 1974 .

[27]  Imogen Cara Halstead,et al.  Learning in social networks , 2014 .

[28]  Gang Kou,et al.  Bounded confidence opinion dynamics with opinion leaders and environmental noises , 2016, Comput. Oper. Res..

[29]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Classifying Twitter Topic-Networks Using Social Network Analysis , 2017 .

[30]  Kathryn B. Laskey,et al.  Stochastic blockmodels: First steps , 1983 .

[31]  Stacy Patterson,et al.  Maximizing Diversity of Opinion in Social Networks , 2018, 2019 American Control Conference (ACC).

[32]  R. V. D. Wurff,et al.  Do audiences receive diverse ideas from news media? Exposure to a variety of news media and personal characteristics as determinants of diversity as received , 2011 .

[33]  Dafne Muntanyola-Saura,et al.  Heterophily in social groups formation: a social network analysis , 2018, Quality & Quantity.

[34]  Zachary P. Neal,et al.  Making Big Communities Small: Using Network Science to Understand the Ecological and Behavioral Requirements for Community Social Capital , 2015, American journal of community psychology.

[35]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[36]  G. Kramer Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior, 1896–1964 , 1971, American Political Science Review.

[37]  Roland Imhoff,et al.  What Motivates Nonconformity? Uniqueness Seeking Blocks Majority Influence , 2009, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[38]  David Tuckett,et al.  Measuring the Influencers in the News Media's Narratives , 2018, 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM).

[39]  Jacob Ratkiewicz,et al.  Political Polarization on Twitter , 2011, ICWSM.

[40]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[41]  M. McCombs,et al.  A COMPARISON OF FACTORS INFLUENCING ISSUE DIVERSITY IN THE U.S. AND TAIWAN , 1995 .

[42]  Giacomo Livan,et al.  What do leaders know? , 2013, Entropy.

[43]  Martin Bichler,et al.  Identification of influencers - Measuring influence in customer networks , 2008, Decis. Support Syst..

[44]  Evan Sadler,et al.  Learning in Social Networks , 2016 .

[45]  Asuman E. Ozdaglar,et al.  Opinion Fluctuations and Disagreement in Social Networks , 2010, Math. Oper. Res..

[46]  Jennifer Brundidge Encountering "Difference" in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks , 2010 .

[47]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Individualization as Driving Force of Clustering Phenomena in Humans , 2010, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[48]  B. Golub,et al.  How Homophily Affects the Speed of Learning and Best Response Dynamics , 2012 .

[49]  Stephen P. Boyd,et al.  Distributed average consensus with least-mean-square deviation , 2007, J. Parallel Distributed Comput..

[50]  G. Livan,et al.  A minimalistic model of bias, polarization and misinformation in social networks , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[51]  M. Brewer,et al.  Chapter 2 - Optimal Distinctiveness Theory: A Framework for Social Identity, Social Cognition, and Intergroup Relations , 2010 .

[52]  B. Golub,et al.  How Homophily Affects the Speed of Learning and Best Response Dynamics , 2012 .

[53]  S. Redner,et al.  On the role of zealotry in the voter model , 2007 .

[54]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.