Comfort-driven mobility produces spatial fragmentation in Axelrod's model

Axelrod's model for the dissemination of culture combines two key ingredients of social dynamics: social influence, through which people become more similar when they interact, and homophily, which is the tendency of individuals to interact preferentially with similar others. In Axelrod's model, the agents are fixed to the nodes of a network and are allowed to interact with a predetermined set of peers only, resulting in the frustration of a large number of agents that end up culturally isolated. Here we modify this model by allowing the agents to move away from their cultural opposites and stay put when near their cultural likes. The comfort, i.e., the tendency of an agent to stay put in a neighborhood, is determined by the cultural similarity with its neighbors. The less the comfort, the higher the odds that the agents will move apart a fixed step size. We find that the comfort-driven mobility fragments severely the influence network for low initial cultural diversity, resulting in a network composed of only microscopic components in the thermodynamic limit. For high initial cultural diversity and intermediate values of the step size, we find that a macroscopic component coexists with the microscopic ones. The transition between these two fragmentation regimes changes from continuous to discontinuous as the step size increases. In addition, we find that for both very small and very large step sizes the influence network is severely fragmented.

[1]  Mathew D. Penrose,et al.  Random Geometric Graphs , 2003 .

[2]  J. Dall,et al.  Random geometric graphs. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[3]  Arne Traulsen,et al.  Coevolution of strategy and structure in complex networks with dynamical linking. , 2006, Physical review letters.

[4]  Marsili,et al.  Nonequilibrium phase transition in a model for social influence , 2000, Physical review letters.

[5]  Kurt Binder,et al.  Critical Properties from Monte Carlo Coarse Graining and Renormalization , 1981 .

[6]  Raúl Toral,et al.  Nonequilibrium transitions in complex networks: a model of social interaction. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[7]  V. Eguíluz,et al.  Globalization, polarization and cultural drift , 2005 .

[8]  M. Fricker,et al.  The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology , 2019 .

[9]  Kimmo Kaski,et al.  Structural transition in social networks: The role of homophily , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[10]  Maxi San Miguel,et al.  Fragmentation transitions in a coevolving nonlinear voter model , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[11]  E. N. Gilbert,et al.  Random Plane Networks , 1961 .

[12]  Ernesto Estrada,et al.  Epidemic spreading in random rectangular networks , 2015, Physical review. E.

[13]  Maxi San Miguel,et al.  Generic absorbing transition in coevolution dynamics. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[14]  Boleslaw K. Szymanski,et al.  Opinion Dynamics and Influencing on Random Geometric Graphs , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[15]  Raúl Toral,et al.  Role of dimensionality in Axelrod's model for the dissemination of culture , 2003 .

[16]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Computational models of collective behavior , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  R. Axelrod The Dissemination of Culture , 1997 .

[18]  Jaakko Kuorikoski,et al.  Modeling Epistemic Communities , 2019, The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology.

[19]  Raúl Toral,et al.  Global culture: a noise-induced transition in finite systems. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[20]  Federico Vazquez,et al.  Time-scale competition leading to fragmentation and recombination transitions in the coevolution of network and states. , 2007, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[21]  Daichi Kimura,et al.  Coevolutionary networks with homophily and heterophily. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

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

[23]  Paulo F. C. Tilles,et al.  The consensus in the two-feature two-state one-dimensional Axelrod model revisited , 2015, 1502.00809.

[24]  M. G. Cosenza,et al.  General coevolution of topology and dynamics in networks , 2011, 1102.3467.

[25]  José F. Fontanari,et al.  Mobility helps problem-solving systems to avoid Groupthink , 2018, Physical review. E.

[26]  José F. Fontanari,et al.  Policies for allocation of information in task-oriented groups: elitism and egalitarianism outperform welfarism , 2019, The European Physical Journal B.

[27]  Víctor M Eguíluz,et al.  Coevolution of dynamical states and interactions in dynamic networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[28]  L. Festinger Social pressures in informal groups : a study of human factors in housing / by Leon Festinger, Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back , 1950 .

[29]  Alain Barrat,et al.  Social network dynamics of face-to-face interactions , 2011, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[30]  Luciano da Fontoura Costa,et al.  Opinion diversity and social bubbles in adaptive Sznajd networks , 2019, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment.

[31]  Andrea Baronchelli,et al.  Modeling human dynamics of face-to-face interaction networks , 2013, Physical review letters.

[32]  José F Fontanari,et al.  Effect of long-range interactions on the phase transition of Axelrod's model. , 2016, Physical review. E.

[33]  J. Fontanari,et al.  The nature of the continuous non-equilibrium phase transition of Axelrod's model , 2014, 1412.1010.

[34]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Ordering phase transition in the one-dimensional Axelrod model , 2002 .

[35]  Yamir Moreno,et al.  Synchronization in Random Geometric Graphs , 2009, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos.