IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/compec/v53y2019i2d10.1007_s10614-017-9751-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opinion Formation with Imperfect Agents as an Evolutionary Process

Author

Listed:
  • Matjaž Steinbacher

    (Faculty of Business Studies
    Kiel Institute for the World Economy)

  • Mitja Steinbacher

    (Faculty of Business Studies)

Abstract

We develop and simulate an interaction-based model of continuous opinion formation under bounded confidence to identify conditions and understand circumstances that lead a society into either a consensus, multiple opinion classes or perpetual opinion dynamics. The society is modeled as a social network and random meetings are presumed. When only regular agents are present, we have shown that the small world networks may bring the society very close to consensus for even small threshold levels, but require higher tolerance than the complete network to reach consensus. We have identified the conditions under which the process with stubborn agents generates long-run consensus, permanent disagreement or permanent fluctuation in opinions. There cannot be a persistent fluctuation in opinions in the environment of regular agents nor in the presence of a single group of stubborn agents. In the runs with a single group of stubborn extremists, we have identified the Popper paradox despite the existence of a tolerance span in which the proportion of extremism decreases as the tolerance level increases. Further, in a highly tolerant society with two competing extremist groups, they have no supporters among the regular agents whose opinions are oscillating around the center of the opinion space. The influence of inconsistent agents is persistent and induces a perpetual opinion dynamics. The model is non-equilibrium and emerging, while consensus, if attainable, can be reached in a finite time.

Suggested Citation

  • Matjaž Steinbacher & Mitja Steinbacher, 2019. "Opinion Formation with Imperfect Agents as an Evolutionary Process," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 53(2), pages 479-505, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:compec:v:53:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s10614-017-9751-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10614-017-9751-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10614-017-9751-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10614-017-9751-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward L. Glaeser & Bruce Sacerdote & José A. Scheinkman, 1996. "Crime and Social Interactions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 111(2), pages 507-548.
    2. Dutta, Bhaskar & Sen, Arunava, 2012. "Nash implementation with partially honest individuals," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 154-169.
    3. Gale, Douglas & Kariv, Shachar, 2003. "Bayesian learning in social networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 329-346, November.
    4. H. Peyton Young & Shmuel Zamir (ed.), 2015. "Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 4, number 4.
    5. Craig Burnside & Martin Eichenbaum & Sergio Rebelo, 2016. "Understanding Booms and Busts in Housing Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(4), pages 1088-1147.
    6. Venkatesh Bala & Sanjeev Goyal, 1998. "Learning from Neighbours," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 65(3), pages 595-621.
    7. Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron & Józef Sznajd, 2000. "Opinion Evolution In Closed Community," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(06), pages 1157-1165.
    8. Andrea Baronchelli & Vittorio Loreto & Luc Steels, 2008. "In-Depth Analysis Of The Naming Game Dynamics: The Homogeneous Mixing Case," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(05), pages 785-812.
    9. Blume Lawrence E., 1993. "The Statistical Mechanics of Strategic Interaction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 387-424, July.
    10. Kfir Eliaz, 2002. "Fault Tolerant Implementation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(3), pages 589-610.
    11. Tesfatsion, Leigh & Judd, Kenneth L., 2006. "Handbook of Computational Economics, Vol. 2: Agent-Based Computational Economics," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10368, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    12. Jadbabaie, Ali & Molavi, Pooya & Sandroni, Alvaro & Tahbaz-Salehi, Alireza, 2012. "Non-Bayesian social learning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 210-225.
    13. Banerjee, Abhijit & Fudenberg, Drew, 2004. "Word-of-mouth learning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-22, January.
    14. Peter M. DeMarzo & Dimitri Vayanos & Jeffrey Zwiebel, 2003. "Persuasion Bias, Social Influence, and Unidimensional Opinions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(3), pages 909-968.
    15. Réka Albert & Hawoong Jeong & Albert-László Barabási, 2000. "Error and attack tolerance of complex networks," Nature, Nature, vol. 406(6794), pages 378-382, July.
    16. David Hirshleifer, 2001. "Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1533-1597, August.
    17. Benjamin Golub & Matthew O. Jackson, 2010. "Naïve Learning in Social Networks and the Wisdom of Crowds," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 112-149, February.
    18. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2002. "Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(3), pages 1-2.
    19. Guillaume Deffuant & Frederic Amblard & Gérard Weisbuch, 2002. "How Can Extremism Prevail? a Study Based on the Relative Agreement Interaction Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(4), pages 1-1.
    20. Daron Acemoglu & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2011. "Opinion Dynamics and Learning in Social Networks," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 3-49, March.
    21. Acemoglu, Daron & Ozdaglar, Asuman & ParandehGheibi, Ali, 2010. "Spread of (mis)information in social networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 194-227, November.
    22. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2011. "Ideological Segregation Online and Offline," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(4), pages 1799-1839.
    23. Daron Acemoğlu & Giacomo Como & Fabio Fagnani & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2013. "Opinion Fluctuations and Disagreement in Social Networks," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 1-27, February.
    24. Serge Galam, 2008. "Sociophysics: A Review Of Galam Models," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(03), pages 409-440.
    25. Leigh Tesfatsion & Kenneth L. Judd (ed.), 2006. "Handbook of Computational Economics," Handbook of Computational Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 2, number 2.
    26. Duncan J. Watts & Peter Sheridan Dodds, 2007. "Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(4), pages 441-458, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mitja Steinbacher & Matjaž Steinbacher & Clemens Knoppe, 2024. "Opinion Dynamics with Preference Matching: How the Desire to Meet Facilitates Opinion Exchange," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 64(2), pages 735-768, August.
    2. Loretta Mastroeni & Maurizio Naldi & Pierluigi Vellucci, 2023. "Personal Finance Decisions with Untruthful Advisors: An Agent-Based Model," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 61(4), pages 1477-1522, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Taalaibekova, Akylai, 2019. "Opinion formation and targeting when persuaders have extreme and centrist opinions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 9-27.
    2. Azzimonti, Marina & Fernandes, Marcos, 2023. "Social media networks, fake news, and polarization," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    3. Mitja Steinbacher & Matjaž Steinbacher & Clemens Knoppe, 2024. "Opinion Dynamics with Preference Matching: How the Desire to Meet Facilitates Opinion Exchange," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 64(2), pages 735-768, August.
    4. Fernandes, Marcos R., 2023. "Confirmation bias in social networks," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 59-76.
    5. Christos Mavridis & Nikolas Tsakas, 2021. "Social Capital, Communication Channels and Opinion Formation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 635-678, May.
    6. Catherine A. Glass & David H. Glass, 2021. "Social Influence of Competing Groups and Leaders in Opinion Dynamics," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 58(3), pages 799-823, October.
    7. Buechel, Berno & Hellmann, Tim & Klößner, Stefan, 2015. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under conformity," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 240-257.
    8. Eger, Steffen, 2016. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under out-group discrimination," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 97-107.
    9. Ding, Huihui & Pivato, Marcus, 2021. "Deliberation and epistemic democracy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 138-167.
    10. Liu, Qipeng & Wang, Xiaofan, 2013. "Social learning with bounded confidence and heterogeneous agents," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(10), pages 2368-2374.
    11. Foerster, Manuel, 2018. "Finite languages, persuasion bias, and opinion fluctuations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 46-57.
    12. Foerster, Manuel, 2019. "Dynamics of strategic information transmission in social networks," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), January.
    13. Jackson, Matthew O. & Zenou, Yves, 2015. "Games on Networks," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    14. Isabel Melguizo, 2019. "Homophily and the Persistence of Disagreement," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(619), pages 1400-1424.
    15. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2020. "A Survey on Nonstrategic Models of Opinion Dynamics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-29, December.
    16. Michel Grabisch & Antoine Mandel & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Emily Tanimura, 2015. "Strategic influence in social networks," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01158168, HAL.
    17. Battiston, Pietro & Stanca, Luca, 2015. "Boundedly rational opinion dynamics in social networks: Does indegree matter?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 400-421.
    18. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2016. "Determining models of influence," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 26(2), pages 69-85.
    19. Trond G. Husby & Elco E. Koks, 2017. "Household migration in disaster impact analysis: incorporating behavioural responses to risk," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(1), pages 287-305, May.
    20. repec:hal:pseose:hal-01387480 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Wang, Huanjing & Shang, Lihui, 2015. "Opinion dynamics in networks with common-neighbors-based connections," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 421(C), pages 180-186.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:compec:v:53:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s10614-017-9751-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.