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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
H.T. Aristotle, G.C. Armstrong, The Metaphysics (W. Heinemann, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, London, 1933)
R. Axelrod, The dissemination of culture: a model with local convergence and global polarization. J. Conflict Resolut. 41(2), 203–226 (1997)
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)
A. Baronchelli, V. Loreto, F. Tria, Language dynamics. Advs. Complex Syst. 15, 1203002 (2012)
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)
E. Bonabeau, G. Theraulaz, J.L. Deneubourg, Phase diagram of a model of self-organizing hierarchies. Phys. A 217(3), 373–439 (1995)
C. Castellano, D. Vilone, A. Vespignani, Incomplete ordering of the voter model on small-world networks. EPL (Europhys. Lett.) 63(1), 153 (2003)
C. Castellano, S. Fortunato, V. Loreto, Statistical physics of social dynamics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81(2), 591 (2009)
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)
P. Clifford, A. Sudbury, A model for spatial conflict. Biometrika 60(3), 581–588 (1973)
M. Conover, J. Ratkiewicz, M.R. Francisco, B. Gonçalves, F. Menczer, A. Flammini, Political polarization on Twitter. ICWSM 133, 89–96 (2011)
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)
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)
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)
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
N.E. Friedkin, E.C. Johnsen, Social influence and opinions. J. Math. Sociol. 15(3–4), 193–206 (1990)
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)
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)
M.C. González, C.A. Hidalgo, A.L. Barabási, Understanding individual human mobility patterns. Nature 453(7196), 779–782 (2008)
B.L. Granovsky, N. Madras, The noisy voter model. Stoch. Proces. Appl. 55(1), 23–43 (1995)
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
R. Hegselmann, U. Krause, Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 5(3), 1–33 (2002)
D. Helbing, Traffic and related self-driven many-particle systems. Rev. Mod. Phys. 73(4), 1067 (2001)
R.A. Holley, T.M. Liggett, Ergodic theorems for weakly interacting innite systems and the voter model. Ann. Probab. 643–663 (1975)
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)
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)
H. Noorazar, Recent advances in opinion propagation dynamics: a 2020 survey. Eur. Phys. J. plus 135(6), 1–20 (2020)
H. Noorazar, K.R. Vixie, A. Talebanpour, Y. Hu, From classical to modern opinion dynamics. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 31(07), 2050101 (2020)
B.D. Nye, Modeling Memes: A Memetic View of Affordance Learning. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania (2011)
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
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)
M. Scheucher, H. Spohn, A soluble kinetic model for spinodal decomposition. J. Stat. Phys. 53(1), 279–294 (1988)
A. Sîrbu, 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
F. Vazquez, P.L. Krapivsky, S. Redner, Constrained opinion dynamics: freezing and slow evolution. J. Phys. a.: Math. Gen. 36(3), L61 (2003)
D. Vilone, C. Castellano, Solution of voter model dynamics on annealed small-world networks. Phys. Rev. E 69(1), 016109 (2004)
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
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)
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)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
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)