From Individual Choice to Group Decision Making

Some universal features are independent of both the social nature of the individuals making the decision and the nature of the decision itself. On this basis a simple magnet like model is built. Pair interactions are introduced to measure the degree of exchange among individuals while discussing. An external uniform field is included to account for a possible pressure from outside. Individual biases with respect to the issue at stake are also included using local random fields. A unique postulate of minimum conflict is assumed. The model is then solved with emphasis on its psycho-sociological implications. Counter-intuitive results are obtained. At this stage no new physical technicality is involved. Instead the full psycho-sociological implications of the model are drawn. Few cases are then detailed to enlight them. In addition, several numerical experiments based on our model are shown to give both an insight on the dynamics of the model and suggest further research directions.

[1]  B. Latané,et al.  Statistical mechanics of social impact. , 1992, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[2]  Frank Schweitzer,et al.  Active brownian particles: Artificial agents in physics , 1997 .

[3]  Collective phenomena and the applications of physics to other fields of science : prepared for delivery at a seminar, Moscow, USSR, 1-5 July, 1974 , 1976 .

[4]  Shang‐keng Ma.  Modern Theory of Critical Phenomena , 1976 .

[5]  J. H. Davis.  Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. , 1973 .

[6]  Moshe Levy,et al.  Microscopic Simulation of the Stock Market: the Effect of Microscopic Diversity , 1995 .

[7]  S. Galam,et al.  Sociophysics: A new approach of sociological collective behaviour. I. mean‐behaviour description of a strike , 1982, 2211.07041.

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

[9]  D. Stauffer,et al.  Monte Carlo simulations of sexual reproduction , 1996, cond-mat/9605110.

[10]  Joshua M. Epstein,et al.  Growing artificial societies , 1996 .

[11]  John C. Turner,et al.  Rediscovering the Social Group , 1987 .

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

[13]  D. Helbing,et al.  Phase diagram of tra c states in the presence of inhomogeneities , 1998, cond-mat/9809324.

[14]  G. A. Kohring,et al.  Ising Models of Social Impact: the Role of Cumulative Advantage , 1996 .

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

[16]  S. Galam,et al.  Towards a theory of collective phenomena. II: Conformity and power , 1994 .

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

[18]  Jacques Ferber,et al.  Multi-agent simulation as a tool for analysing emergent processes in societies , 1992 .

[19]  B. Derrida,et al.  Non-trivial exponents in the zero temperature dynamics of the 1D Ising and Potts models , 1994 .

[20]  S. Moscovici,et al.  The group as a polarizer of attitudes. , 1969 .

[21]  D. Stauffer.  Ising spinodal decomposition at T=O in one to five dimensions , 1994 .

[22]  S. Galam,et al.  Towards a theory of collective phenomena. III: Conflicts and forms of power , 1995 .

[23]  S. Moscovici,et al.  Social Influence And Social Change , 1976 .

[24]  A. Vinokur,et al.  Testing two classes of theories about group induced shifts in individual choice , 1973 .