Skip to main content

Opinion Dynamics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
AI in the Financial Markets

Part of the book series: Computational Social Sciences ((CSS))

  • 743 Accesses

Abstract

The computational social science is a challenging interdisciplinary field of study, aimed at studying social phenomena by merging the traditional research of social science with the use of a computational and data-driven approach. In the conceptual framework of the complex systems science the environment where these phenomena live and act can be seen as a social system, composed of many elements, the agents, which form a social complex network: thus, the agents can be represented by the nodes of a network, whose reciprocal positions determine the resulting network structure. Therefore, the complex systems science perspective proves particularly useful in order to study the interactions occurring in a social environment: as a matter of fact, these mechanisms give rise to emergent collective behaviors at the system level. Hence, the aim of the computational social science is to study the different interaction mechanisms so as to understand their role in the rise of the collective social phenomena. In order to perform effective and robust studies, plenty of models have been proposed, ranging from general social dynamics and social spreading to crowd behavior and opinion, cultural or language dynamics, or hierarchy or segregation formation. In this context, opinion dynamics is definitively a fundamental social behavior to study. By everyday experience, one of the most important social phenomenon is agreement: especially when it comes to a discussion involving different opinions, the process of reaching at least a partial agreement proved to be a basic catalyst of the evolution of the human thinking during time. From the dynamics of the single individuals’ interactions to the opinion dynamics in large populations, there are many situations in the social and political life in which a community needs to reach a consensus. Through a process of progressive agreements on different themes, some opinions spread, some others disappear and some others evolve through merging and non-linear memetic processes: in this way, the dominant macro-culture is formed and evolves in a society. Therefore, opinion dynamics models can be seen as a sub-set of the so-called consensus models. In general, a consensus model allows to understand if and how a set of interacting agents can reach a consensus when choosing among several options: political vote, opinions, cultural features are well-known examples of them. The agent-based modelling methodology proves particularly useful to represent the individuals’ behavior and analyze the population dynamics. In the literature, plenty of models are aimed at studying opinion dynamics: each model proposed can often be modified with various variants. In this chapter, we will present the overall scenario of opinion dynamics, by showing the main challenges and approaches to study and analyze consensus formation in heterogeneous settings and conditions.

Managers are not confronted with problems that are independent of each other, but with dynamic situations that consist of complex systems of changing problems that interact with each other. I call such situations messes. Managers do not solve problems, they manage messes.

Russell L. Ackoff.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • H.T. Aristotle, G.C. Armstrong, The Metaphysics (W. Heinemann, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, London, 1933)

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Axelrod, The dissemination of culture: a model with local convergence and global polarization. J. Conflict Resolut. 41(2), 203–226 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Balcan, V. Colizza, B. Gonçalves, H. Hu, J.J. Ramasco, A. Vespignani, Multiscale mobility networks and the spatial spreading of infectious diseases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106(51), 21484–21489 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Baronchelli, V. Loreto, F. Tria, Language dynamics. Advs. Complex Syst. 15, 1203002 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Bolzern, P. Colaneri, G. De Nicolao, Opinion dynamics in social networks: the effect of centralized interaction tuning on emerging behaviors. IEEE Trans. Comput. Soc. Syst. 7(2), 362–372 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. Bonabeau, G. Theraulaz, J.L. Deneubourg, Phase diagram of a model of self-organizing hierarchies. Phys. A 217(3), 373–439 (1995)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • C. Castellano, D. Vilone, A. Vespignani, Incomplete ordering of the voter model on small-world networks. EPL (Europhys. Lett.) 63(1), 153 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. Castellano, S. Fortunato, V. Loreto, Statistical physics of social dynamics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81(2), 591 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • X. CastellĂł, V.M. EguĂ­luz, M. San Miguel, Ordering dynamics with two non-excluding options: bilingualism in language competition. New J. Phys. 8(12), 308 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Clifford, A. Sudbury, A model for spatial conflict. Biometrika 60(3), 581–588 (1973)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • M. Conover, J. Ratkiewicz, M.R. Francisco, B. Gonçalves, F. Menczer, A. Flammini, Political polarization on Twitter. ICWSM 133, 89–96 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Conte, N. Gilbert, G. Bonelli, C. Cio-Revilla, G. Deuant, J. Kertesz, V. Loreto, S. Moat, J.-P. Nadal, A. Sanchez, A. Nowak, A. Flache, M. San Miguel, D. Helbing, Manifesto of computational social science. Eur. Phys. J. Special Top. 214, 325346 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Das, S. Gollapudi, K. Munagala, Modeling opinion dynamics in social networks, in Proceedings of the 7th ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (WSDM’14) (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2014), pp. 403–412. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556195.2559896

  • G. Deffuant, D. Neau, F. Amblard, G. Weisbuch, Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Adv. Complex Syst. 3(01n04), 87–98 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • M.H. Degroot, Reaching a consensus. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69(345), 118–121 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1974.10480137

  • J. Fernández-Gracia, K. Suchecki, J.J. Ramasco, M. San Miguel, V.M. EguĂ­luz, Is the voter model a model for voters? Phys. Rev. Lett. 112(15), 158701 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Fotakis, V. Kandiros, V. Kontonis, S. Skoulakis, Opinion dynamics with limited information, in International Conference on Web and Internet Economics (Springer, Cham, 2018), pp 282–296

    Google Scholar 

  • N.E. Friedkin, E.C. Johnsen, Social influence and opinions. J. Math. Sociol. 15(3–4), 193–206 (1990)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • F. Giardini, D. Vilone, R. Conte, Consensus emerging from the bottom-up: the role of cognitive variables in opinion dynamics. Front. Phys. 3, 64 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J.P. Gleeson, D. Cellai, J.P. Onnela, M.A. Porter, F. Reed-Tsochas, A simple generative model of collective online behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111(29), 10411–10415 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M.C. González, C.A. Hidalgo, A.L. Barabási, Understanding individual human mobility patterns. Nature 453(7196), 779–782 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B.L. Granovsky, N. Madras, The noisy voter model. Stoch. Proces. Appl. 55(1), 23–43 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • M. Grieves, J. Vickers, Digital twin: mitigating unpredictable, undesirable emergent behavior in complex systems, in Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Complex Systems (Springer, Cham, 2017), pp. 85–113

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Hegselmann, U. Krause, Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 5(3), 1–33 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Helbing, Traffic and related self-driven many-particle systems. Rev. Mod. Phys. 73(4), 1067 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • R.A. Holley, T.M. Liggett, Ergodic theorems for weakly interacting innite systems and the voter model. Ann. Probab. 643–663 (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Lazer, A. Pentland, L. Adamic, S. Aral, A.L. Barabasi, D. Brewer, N. Christakis, N. Contractor, J. Fowler, M. Gutmann, T. Jebara, G. King, M. Macy, D. Roy, M. Van Alstyne, Life in the network: the coming age of computational social science. Science 323(5915), 721723 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S.T. Mueller, Y.Y.S. Tan, Cognitive perspectives on opinion dynamics: The role of knowledge in consensus formation, opinion divergence, and group polarization. J. Comput. Soc. Sci. 1(1), 15–48 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H. Noorazar, Recent advances in opinion propagation dynamics: a 2020 survey. Eur. Phys. J. plus 135(6), 1–20 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H. Noorazar, K.R. Vixie, A. Talebanpour, Y. Hu, From classical to modern opinion dynamics. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 31(07), 2050101 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • B.D. Nye, Modeling Memes: A Memetic View of Affordance Learning. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson S, Bamieh B (2010) Interaction-driven opinion dynamics in online social networks, in Proceedings of the First Workshop on Social Media Analytics, pp. 98–105

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Perc, J.J. Jordan, D.G. Rand, Z. Wang, S. Boccaletti, A. Szolnoki, Statistical physics of human cooperation. Phys. Rep. 687, 1–51 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • M. Scheucher, H. Spohn, A soluble kinetic model for spinodal decomposition. J. Stat. Phys. 53(1), 279–294 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • A. SĂ®rbu, V. Loreto, V.D. Servedio, F. Tria, Opinion dynamics: models, extensions and external effects, in Participatory Sensing, Opinions and Collective Awareness. Springer, Cham (2017), pp. 363–401

    Google Scholar 

  • F. Vazquez, P.L. Krapivsky, S. Redner, Constrained opinion dynamics: freezing and slow evolution. J. Phys. a.: Math. Gen. 36(3), L61 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • D. Vilone, C. Castellano, Solution of voter model dynamics on annealed small-world networks. Phys. Rev. E 69(1), 016109 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • G. Weisbuch, G. Deffuant, F. Amblard, J.-P. Nadal, Meet, discuss, and segregate! Complexity 7, 55–63 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.10031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H. Xia, H. Wang, Z. Xuan, Opinion dynamics: a multidisciplinary review and perspective on future research. Int. J. Knowl. Syst. Sci. (IJKSS) 2(4), 72–91 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Q. Zha, G. Kou, H. Zhang, H. Liang, X. Chen, C.C. Li, Y. Dong, Opinion dynamics in finance and business: a literature review and research opportunities. Financ. Innov. 6(1), 1–22 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Marconi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Marconi, L. (2023). Opinion Dynamics. In: Cecconi, F. (eds) AI in the Financial Markets . Computational Social Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26518-1_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26518-1_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-26517-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-26518-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics