CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Opinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis

Computational Agent-based Models in Opinion Dynamics: A Survey on Social Simulations and Empirical Studies

Open access
Chuang, Yun-Shiuan, Rogers, Timothy T.·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2306.03446arXiv 2306.03446
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Understanding how an individual changes its attitude, belief, and opinion due to other people's social influences is vital because of its wide implications. A core methodology that is used to study the change of attitude under social influences is agent-based model (ABM). The goal of this review paper is to compare and contrast existing ABMs, which I classify into two families, the deductive ABMs and the inductive ABMs. The former subsumes social simulation studies, and the latter involves human experiments. To facilitate the comparison between ABMs of different formulations, I propose a general unified formulation, in which all ABMs can be viewed as special cases. In addition, I show the connections between deductive ABMs and inductive ABMs, and point out their strengths and limitations. At the end of the paper, I identify underexplored areas and suggest future research directions.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2306.03446

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?

  • 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 Chuang and Rogers, 2023

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Anderson, N. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78(3), 171.
  2. Banerjee, S., Jenamani, M., & Pratihar, D. K. (2020). A survey on influence maximization in a social network. Knowledge and Information Systems, 62(9), 3417-3455.
  3. Banisch, S., & Olbrich, E. (2019). Opinion polarization by learning from social feedback. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 43(2), 76-103.
  4. Baumann, F., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Sokolov, I. M., & Starnini, M. (2020). Modeling echo chambers and polarization dynamics in social networks. Physical Review Letters, 124(4), 048301.
  5. Becker, J., Brackbill, D., & Centola, D. (2017). Network dynamics of social influence in the wisdom of crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(26), E5070-E5076.
  6. Becker, J., Porter, E., & Centola, D. (2019). The wisdom of partisan crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(22), 10717-10722.
  7. Centola, D., Becker, J., Brackbill, D., & Baronchelli, A. (2018). Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention. Science, 360(6393), 1116-1119.
  8. 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).
  9. DeGroot, M. H. (1974). Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(345), 118-121.
  10. Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2005). A generalized model of social and biological contagion. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 232(4), 587-604.
  11. Doob, L. W. (1947). The behavior of attitudes. Psychological Review, 54(3), 135.
  12. Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford university press.
  13. Flache, A., Mäs, M., Feliciani, T., Chattoe-Brown, E., Deffuant, G., Huet, S., & Lorenz, J. (2017). Models of social influence: Towards the next frontiers. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20(4).
  14. Galton, F. (1907). Vox Populi. Nature, 75(1949), 450-451. https://doi.org/10.1038/075450a0 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Hegselmann, R., & Krause, U. (2002). Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(3).
  16. Holme, P., & Newman, M. E. (2006). Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions. Physical Review E, 74(5), 056108.
  17. Hunter, J. E., Danes, J. E., & Cohen, S. H. (1984). Mathematical models of attitude change: Change in single attitudes and cognitive structure (Vol. 1). Academic Press.
  18. Jager, W., & Amblard, F. (2005). Uniformity, bipolarization and pluriformity captured as generic stylized behavior with an agent-based simulation model of attitude change. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 10(4), 295-303.
  19. Jayles, B., Kim, H., Escobedo, R., Cezera, S., Blanchet, A., Kameda, T., Sire, C., & Theraulaz, G. (2017). How social information can improve estimation accuracy in human groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(47), 12620- 12625.
  20. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480.
  21. Li, Y., Fan, J., Wang, Y., & Tan, K.-L. (2018). Influence maximization on social graphs: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 30(10), 1852-1872.
  22. Lorenz, J., Neumann, M., & Schröder, T. (2021). Individual attitude change and societal dynamics: Computational experiments with psychological theories. Psychological Review, 128(4), 623.
  23. Lorenz, J., Rauhut, H., Schweitzer, F., & Helbing, D. (2011). How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(22), 9020-9025.
  24. Lu, W., Chen, W., & Lakshmanan, L. V. (2015). From Competition to Complementarity: Comparative Influence Diffusion and Maximization. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 9(2).
  25. Madsen, J. K., Bailey, R. M., & Pilditch, T. D. (2018). Large networks of rational agents form persistent echo chambers. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1-8.
  26. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089- 2680.2.2.175 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 62(1), 42.
  28. Salzarulo, L. (2006). A continuous opinion dynamics model based on the principle of meta- contrast. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 9(1).
  29. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. (pp. xii, 218). Yale Univer. Press.
  30. Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. Oxford University Press.
  31. Takács, K., Flache, A., & Mäs, M. (2016). Discrepancy and disliking do not induce negative opinion shifts. PloS One, 11(6), e0157948.
  32. Wagner, C. (1978). Consensus through respect: A model of rational group decision-making. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 34(4), 335-349.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chuang, Y.-S., & Rogers, T. T.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
ORCID
Rogers, Timothy T.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2306.03446
arXiv
2306.03446
OpenAlex
W4379924389
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Complex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Keywords
opinion dynamics, agent-based modeling, social influence, attitude change, social simulation

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