CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 48Opinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceSocial and Intergroup PsychologyMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation

Individual attitude change and societal dynamics: Computational experiments with psychological theories.

Open access
Lorenz, Jan, Neumann, Martin, Schröder, Tobias·2021·Psychological Review
DOI 10.1037/rev0000291
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We present an agent-based model for studying the societal implications of attitude change theories. Various psychological theories of persuasive communication at the individual level are implemented as simulation experiments. The model allows us to investigate the effects of contagion and assimilation, motivated cognition, polarity, source credibility, and idiosyncratic attitude formation. Simulations show that different theories produce different characteristic macrolevel patterns. Contagion and assimilation are central mechanisms for generating consensus, however, contagion generates a radicalized consensus. Motivated cognition causes societal polarization or the fragmentation of attitudes. Polarity and source credibility have comparatively little effect on the societal distribution of attitudes. We discuss how the simulations provide a bridge between microlevel psychological theories and the aggregated macrolevel studied by sociology. This approach enables new types of evidence for evaluating psychological theory to complement experimental approaches, thus answering calls to enhance the role of coherent and formalized theory in psychological science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/rev0000291

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ABMs are the cornerstone of opinion dynamics simulation, defining mathematical rules for agents' opinion updates in response to messages.

    “Agent-Based Models (ABMs) are the cornerstone of opinion dynamics simulation, defining mathematical rules for agents' opinion updates in response to messages (Gilbert and Terna, 2000; Smaldino, 2023; Lorenz et al., 2021; Chuang and Rogers, 2023; Epstein, 2012; Flache et al., 2017).”

    From Simulating Opinion Dynamics with Networks of LLM-based Agents (2024) · cites this paper as Lorenz et al., 2021

  • One key advantage of using ABMs is that they allow incorporating explicit assumptions about cognitive process in opinion updating.

    “One key advantage of using ABMs is that they allow incorporating explicit assumptions about cognitive process in opinion updating (Flache et al., 2017; Lorenz et al., 2021; Chuang and Rogers, 2023).”

    From Simulating Opinion Dynamics with Networks of LLM-based Agents (2024) · cites this paper as Lorenz et al., 2021

  • This all-to-all interaction is not close to social interactions in the real world.

    “While in line with classic setup used in ABM simulation (Flache et al., 2017; Lorenz et al., 2021), this is not close to social interactions in the real world.”

    From Simulating Opinion Dynamics with Networks of LLM-based Agents (2024) · cites this paper as Lorenz et al., 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 98 · Cited by 48

Research works printed but not linked: 80

  1. Anderson, N. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78(3), 171-206.
  2. Asch, S. E. (1948). The doctrine of suggestion, prestige, and imitation in social psychology. Psychological Review 55, 250-276.
  3. Banisch, S., & Olbrich, E. (2019). Opinion polarization by learning from social feedback. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 43(2), 76-103.
  4. Beisbart, C. (2019). What is validation of computer simulations? Towards a clarification of the concept of validation and related notions. In C. Beisbart, N. Saam (eds.), Computer simulation validation. Fundamental concepts, methodological frameworks, and philosophical perspectives (pp. 35-67). Cham: Springer.
  5. Borges, J. L. (1946). Del rigor en la ciencia. Los Anales de Buenos Aires, 1(3), 53.
  6. Brousmiche, K. L., Kant, J. D., Sabouret, N., & Prenot-Guinard, F. (2016). From beliefs to attitudes: Polias, a model of attitude dynamics based on cognitive modeling and field data. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 19(4).
  7. Cantril, H. (1944). Gauging public opinion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  8. Cartwright, D, & Harary, F. (1956). Structural balance: A generalization of Heider's theory. Psychological Review, 63(5), 277-293.
  9. Cartwright, N. (1999). Models and the limits of theory: Quantum Hamiltonians and the BCS models of superconductivity. In M. Morgan, M. Morrison (eds.), Models as mediators. Perspectives on Natural and Social Science (pp. 241-281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Conte, R. (2009). From simulation to theory (and backwards). In F. Squazzoni (ed.), Epistemological aspects of computer simulation in the social sciences (pp. 29-47). Berlin: Springer.
  11. Conte, R., Gilbert, N., Bonelli, G., Cioffi-Revilla, C., Deffuant, G., Kertesz, J., ... & Nowak, A. (2012). Manifesto of computational social science. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 214(1), 325-346.
  12. Dalege, J., Borsboom, D., van Harreveld, F., van den Berg, H., Conner, M., & van der Maas, H. L. (2016). Toward a formalized account of attitudes: The Causal Attitude Network (CAN) model. Psychological Review, 123(1), 2-22.
  13. Dandekar, P., Goel, A., & Lee, D. T. (2013). Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5791-5796.
  14. Deffuant, G., Amblard, F., Weisbuch, G., & Faure, T. (2002). How can extremism prevail? A study based on the relative agreement interaction model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(4).
  15. DeLanda, M. (2015). Philosophy and simulation. The emergence of synthetic reason (2 nd ed). London: Bloomsbury.
  16. DellaPosta, D., Shi, Y., & Macy, M. (2015). Why do liberals drink lattes? American Journal of Sociology, 120(5), 1473-1511.
  17. Devezer, B., Nardin, L. G., Baumgaertner, B., & Buzbas, E. O. (2019). Scientific discovery in a model-centric framework: Reproducibility, innovation, and epistemic diversity. PloS One, 14(5), e0216125.
  18. DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., & Bryson, B. (1996). Have Americans' social attitudes become more polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), 690-755.
  19. Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2005). A generalized model of social and biological contagion. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 232(4), 587-604.
  20. Dowling, D. (1999). Experimenting on theories. Science in Context, 12(2), 261-273.
  21. Edmonds, B. (2017). Different modelling purposes. In B. Edmonds, R. Meyer (eds.), Simulating social complexity (pp. 39-58). Cham: Springer.
  22. Ehret, P. J., Monroe, B. M., & Read, S. J. (2015). Modeling the dynamics of evaluation: A multilevel neural network implementation of the iterative reprocessing model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(2), 148-176.
  23. Epstein, J. (2006). Generative social science. Studies in agent-based computational modelling. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  24. ESS Round 9: European Social Survey Round 9 Data (ESS) (2018). Data file edition 3.
  25. NSD -Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway -Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC. doi:10.21338/NSD-ESS9-2018. · DOI
  26. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
  27. Fiorina, M., & Abrams, S. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563-588.
  28. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
  29. Fried, E. I. (2020). Lack of theory building and testing impedes progress in the factor and network literature. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zg84s · DOI
  30. Friedkin, N. E., & Johnsen, E. C. (1990). Social influence and opinions. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 15(3-4), 193-206.
  31. Goldberg, A., & Stein, S. K. (2018). Beyond social contagion: Associative diffusion and the emergence of cultural variation. American Sociological Review, 83(5), 897-932.
  32. Gollob, H. F. (1968). Impression formation and word combination in sentences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 341-353.
  33. Harari, Y. N. (2016). Homo deus: A brief history of tomorrow. London: Penguin Random House.
  34. Hegselmann, R., & Krause, U. (2002). Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 5(3).
  35. Thomas C. Schelling and James M. Sakoda: The intellectual, technical, and social history of a model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 20(3).
  36. Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-112.
  37. Heise, D. R. (1969). Affectual dynamics in simple sentences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11(3), 204-213.
  38. Heise, D. R. (1979). Understanding events: Affect and the construction of social action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Heise, D. R. (2007). Expressive order. Confirming sentiments in social action. New York: Springer.
  40. Helbing, D., & Balietti, S. (2012). Agent-based modeling. In D. Helbing (ed.), Social self- organization (pp. 25-70). New York, NY: Springer.
  41. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., and Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  42. Hovland, C. I., Harvey, O. J., and Sherif, M. (1957). Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55, 242- 252.
  43. Humphreys, P. (2004). Extending ourselves. Computational science, empiricism, and scientific method. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
  44. Hunter, J., Danes, J., & Cohen, S. (1984). Mathematical models of attitude change Vol. 1. Orlando: Academic Press.
  45. Hutchinson, B. (1949). Some problems of measuring the intensiveness of opinion and attitude. International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research 3, 123-131.
  46. Jackson, J. C., Rand, D., Lewis, K., Norton, M. I., & Gray, K. (2017). Agent-based modeling: A guide for social psychologists. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 387-395.
  47. Jager, W. (2017). Enhancing the realism of simulation (EROS): On implementing and developing psychological theory in social simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20(3).
  48. Jager, W., & Amblard, F. (2005). Uniformity, bipolarization and pluriformity captured as generic stylized behavior with an agent-based simulation model of attitude change. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 10(4), 295-303.
  49. Knuuttila, T. (2011). Modelling and representing: an artefactual approach to model-based representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42(2), 262-271.
  50. Lazer, D., Pentland, A. S., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabasi, A. L., Brewer, D., ... & Jebara, T. (2009). Life in the network: the coming age of computational social science. Science, 323(5915), 721-723.
  51. Lipton, P. (2000). Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
  52. Lorenz, J. (2021). Supplemental materials for preprint: Individual attitude change and societal dynamics: Computational experiments with psychological theories. Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YQ5B4 · DOI
  53. MacKinnon, N. J. (1994). Symbolic interactionism as affect control. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  54. McGuire, W. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey, E. Aronson (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology 3 rd ed. (pp 233 -346). New York: Random House.
  55. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415-444.
  56. Beisbart C. & Saam N. (eds.) Computer simulation validation (pp. 383-403). Springer, Cham.
  57. Morgan, M. & Morrison, M. (1999) (eds.). Models as mediators. Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  58. Morrison, M. (1999). Models as autonomous agents. In M. Morgan, M. Morrison (eds.), Models as mediators. Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 38-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  59. Muthukrishna, M. & Schaller, M. (2020). Are collectivistic cultures more prone to rapid transformation? Computational models of cross-cultural differences, social network structure, dynamic social influence, and cultural change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(3), 103-120.
  60. Newman, M. E. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45(2), 167-256.
  61. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Annual Review of Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
  62. Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latané, B. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97(3), 362-376.
  63. Osgood, C. E. & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 62, 42-55.
  64. Pineda, M., Toral, R., & Hernandez-Garcia, E. (2009). Noisy continuous-opinion dynamics. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2009(08), P08001.
  65. Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. London: Penguin.
  66. Read, S. J., & Simon, D. (2012). Parallel constraint satisfaction as a mechanism for cognitive consistency. In B. Gawronski & F. Strack (eds.), Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 66-88). New York, NY: Guilford.
  67. Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In J. Milton & M. Rosenberg (eds.), Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 1-14). New Haven: Yale University Press.
  68. Salzarulo, L. (2006). A continuous opinion dynamics model based on the principle of meta- contrast. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9(1).
  69. Schröder, T., Hoey, J., & Rogers, K. B. (2016). Modeling dynamic identities and uncertainty in social interactions: Bayesian affect control theory. American Sociological Review, 81(4), 828-855.
  70. Schröder, T., & Wolf, I. (2017). Modeling multi-level mechanisms of environmental attitudes and behaviours: The example of carsharing in Berlin. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 52, 136-148.
  71. Schweitzer, F. (2018). Sociophysics. Physics Today, 71(2), 40-46.
  72. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
  73. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgement. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  74. Shin, J. K., & Lorenz, J. (2010). Tipping diffusivity in information accumulation systems: More links, less consensus. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2010(06), P06005.
  75. Simon, D., Stenstrom, D., & Read, S. J. (2015). The coherence effect: Blending cold and hot cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 369-394.
  76. Smith, E. R., & Conrey, F. R. (2007). Agent-based modeling: A new approach for theory building in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(1), 87-104.
  77. Squazzoni, F. (2012). Agent-based computational sociology. Chichester: Wiley.
  78. Troitzsch, K. G. (2017). Axiomatic theory and simulation. A philosophy of science perspective on Schelling's segregation model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20(1).
  79. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (eds.) (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
  80. Vallacher, R. R., Read, S. J., & Nowak, A. (eds.). (2017). Computational Social Psychology. New York: Routledge.

Authors
Lorenz, J., Neumann, M., & Schröder, T.
Affiliations
  • Constructor University (DE)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Review
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2021-07
Volume
128
Issue
4
Pages
623-642
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
DOI
10.1037/rev0000291
OpenAlex
W3162321025
Cited by
48
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
German Research Foundation (265108307; 396901899)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Keywords
attitude change, persuasive communication, agent-based modeling, contagion, assimilation, motivated cognition, social polarization, consensus formation, source credibility, computational social science
MeSH terms
Attitude, Cognition, Humans, Individuality, Persuasive Communication, Psychological Theory

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