The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contrarian deterministic effects on opinion dynamics: “the hung elections scenario”
Open accessAbstract
We study the effects of contrarians on the dynamics of opinion forming using the 2-state Galam opinion dynamics model. In a single update step, groups of a given size are defined and all agents in each group adopt the state of the local majority. In the absence of contrarians, the dynamics is fast and leads to a total polarization always along the initial majority (for groups of odd sizes). The introduction of contrarians is then shown to give rise to interesting new dynamics properties. First, at low concentration a, a new mixed phase is stabilized with a coexistence of both states. This is an ordered phase with a clear cut majority–minority splitting (non zero order parameter). Second, there is a phase transition into a new disordered phase at ac=16, 0.23, 0.30…12 for groups of respective sizes 3, 5, 9 and infinite. For a⩾ac the disordered phase has no opinion dominating with both state densities equal (zero order parameter). In this phase agents keep shifting states but no global symmetry breaking, i.e., the appearance of a majority, takes place. Our results may shed a new light on the phenomenon of “hung elections” as occured in the 2000 American presidential elections and that of the 2002 German parliamentary elections.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mixing beliefs among interacting agents
Deffuant, G., Neau, D., Amblard, F., & Weisbuch, G. (2000) · Advances in Complex Systems · doi:10.1142/s0219525900000078 · Cited by 2,165
Cited by
Statistical physics of social dynamics
Castellano, C., Fortunato, S., & Loreto, V. (2009) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.591 · Cited by 4,119
Explosive transitions in complex networks’ structure and dynamics: Percolation and synchronization
Boccaletti, S., Almendral, J. A., Guan, S., Leyva, I., Liu, Z., Sendiña-Nadal, I., Wang, Z., & Zou, Y. (2016) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.10.004 · Cited by 363
Stewardship of global collective behavior
Bak-Coleman, J. B., Alfano, M., Barfuss, W., Bergstrom, C. T., Centeno, M. A., Couzin, I. D., Donges, J. F., Galesic, M., Gersick, A. S., Jacquet, J., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2025764118 · Cited by 289
When Your AI Agent Succumbs to Peer-Pressure: Studying Opinion-Change Dynamics of LLMs
Mehdizadeh, A., & Hilbert, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.19107
“Further complexity arises when noise is introduced or when contrarian agents are included; under these conditions, the system can exhibit a range of nontrivial steady states, including persistent polarization or cyclic dynamics [68, 69].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Galam, S.
- Venue
- Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-02
- Volume
- 333
- Pages
- 453-460
- ISSN
- 0378-4371 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2070952198
- Cited by
- 319
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Contrarian deterministic effects on opinion dynamics: “the hung elections scenario”. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.physa.2003.10.041
- The paper
- Galam, S. (2004). Contrarian deterministic effects on opinion dynamics: “the hung elections scenario”. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2003.10.041
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.