Advertisement

Two-Component Opinion Dynamics Theory of Official Stance and Real Opinion Including Self-Interaction

  • Nozomi Okano
  • Yuki Ohira
  • Akira IshiiEmail author
Conference paper
  • 42 Downloads
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 193)

Abstract

We extend the theory of opinion dynamics, which introduces trust and distrust in human relationships in society, to multiple components. The theory is made up of N components, and in particular, here, two components are treated. In this paper, we show the calculation for real opinion and official stance as the two components of opinions.

Keywords

Opinion dynamics Real opinion Official stance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP19K04881. The authors thank for the meaningful discussion on the two-dimensional opinion dynamics of official stance and real opinion with Prof. S Galam of CEVIPOF-Centre for Political Research, Sciences Po and CNRS, Paris, France, Prof. H.Yamamoto of Rissho University and Prof. H. Takikawa of Tohoku University.

References

  1. 1.
    Kuran, T.: Sparks and prairieres: a theory of unanticipated political revolution. Public Choice, vol. 61(1), pp. 41–74 (1989)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ye, M., Qin, Y., Govaert, A., Anderson, B.D.O., Cao, M.: An inuence network model to study discrepancies in expressed and private opinions. Automatica 107, 371–381 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Friedkin, N.E.: Scale-free interpersonal inuences on opinions in complex systems. J. Math. Sociol. 39(3), 168–173 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castellano, C., Fortunato, S., Loreto, V.: Statistical physics of social dynamics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 591–646 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sîrbu, A., Loreto, V., Servedio, V.D.P., Tria, F.: Opinion dynamics: models, extensions and external effects. In: Loreto, V., et al. (eds.) Participatory Sensing, Opinions and Collective Awareness. Understanding Complex Systems, pp. 363–401. Springer, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galam, S.: Rational group decision making: a random field Ising model at T = 0. Phys. A 238, 66 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sznajd-Weron and J. Sznajd: Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 11, 1157 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sznajd-Weron, M.: Tabiszewski, and A. M. Timpanaro: Europhys. Lett. 96, 48002 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galam, S.: Application of statistical physics to politics. Physica A 274, 132–139 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Galam, S.: Real space renormalization group and totalitarian paradox of majority rule voting. Physica A 285, 66–76 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galam S: Are referendums a mechanism to turn our prejudices into rational choices? An unfortunate answer from sociophysics. Laurence Morel and Matt Qvortrup (eds.), Chapter 19 of The Routledge Handbook to Referendums and Direct Democracy Taylor & Francis, London (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Galam, S.: The Trump phenomenon: an explanation from sociophysics. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 31, 1742015 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weisbuch, G., Deffuant, G., Amblard, F., Nadal, J.-P.: Meet, discuss and segregate! Complexity 7, 55–63 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hegselmann, R, Krause, U.: Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 5 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jager, W., Amblard, F.: Uniformity, bipolarization and pluriformity captured as generic stylized behavior with an agent-based simulation model of attitude change. Computat. Math. Organ. Theory 10, 295–303 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jager, W., Amblard, F.: Multiple attitude dynamics in large populations. In: Presented in the Agent 2005 Conference on Generative Social Processes, Models and Mechanisms, 13–15 October 2005 at The University of Chicago (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kurmyshev, E., Juárez, H.A., González-Silva, R.A.: Dynamics of bounded confidence opinion in heterogeneous social networks: concord against partila antagonism. Phys. A 390, 2945–2955 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ishii, A., Kawahata, Y.: Opinion dynamics theory for analysis of consensus formation and division of opinion on the internet. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Asia Pacific Symposium on Intelligent and Evolutionary Systems (IES2018), pp. 71–76 (2018). arXiv:1812.11845 [physics.soc-ph]
  19. 19.
    Ishii, A.: Opinion dynamics theory considering trust and suspicion in human relations. In: Morais, D., Carreras A., de Almeida A., Vetschera R. (eds.) Group Decision and Negotiation: Behavior, Models, and Support. GDN 2019. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 351, pp. 193–204. Springer, Cham (2019)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ishii, A., Kawahata, Y. (2009) Opinion dynamics theory considering interpersonal relationship of trust and distrust and media effects. In: The 33rd Annual Conference of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33 (JSAI2019 2F3-OS-5a-05) (2019)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Okano, N., Ishii, A.: Isolated, untrusted people in society and charismatic person using opinion dynamics. In: Proceedings of ABCSS2019 in Web Intelligence, pp. 1–6 (2019)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ishii, A., Kawahata, Y: New Opinion dynamics theory considering interpersonal relationship of both trust and distrust. In: Proceedings of ABCSS2019 in Web Intelligence, pp. 43–50 (2019)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Okano, N., Ishii, A.: Sociophysics approach of simulation of charismatic person and distrusted people in society using opinion dynamics. In: Sato, H., Iwanaga, S., Ishii, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd Asia-Pacific Symposium on Intelligent and Evolutionary Systems, pp. 238–252. Springer (2019)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ishii, A., Okano, N.: Two-dimensional opinion dynamics of real opinion and official stance. In: Proceedings of NetSci-X 2020: Sixth International Winter School and Conference on Network Science, Springer Proceedings in Complexity, pp. 139–153 (2020)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Levenson, J.L. (ed.): Romeo and Juliet. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000). ISBN: 0-19-281496-6Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Asch, S.E.: Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In: Groups, Leadership and Men; Research in Human Relations, pp. 177–190. Carnegie Press, Oxford (1951)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang, S.W., Huang, C.Y., Sun, C.T.: Modeling self-perception agents in an opinion dynamics propagation society. Simulation 90, 238–248 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huang, C.-Y., Wen, T.-H.: A novel private attitude and public opinion dynamics model for simulating pluralistic ignorance and minority influence. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 17, 8 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    León-Medina, F.J., Tena-Sànchez, J.M., Miguel, F.J.: Fakers becoming believers: how opinion dynamics are shaped by preference falsification, impression management and coherence heuristics. Qual. Quant. (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00909-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tottori UniversityKoyamaJapan

Personalised recommendations