Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Sociophysics pp 169–202Cite as

The Modeling of Opinion Dynamics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Understanding Complex Systems ((UCS))

Abstract

Among the numerous topics of social sciences covered by sociophysics, the study of opinion dynamics has become a mainstream of research [1–23]. It is a critical subject since public opinion has become a central issue in modern societies, making the understanding of its underlining mechanisms a major challenge [24–26]. Any progress could have significant effects on the way of tackling sensitive decisions to which each society as well as the world at large are confronted.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. S. Galam, B. Chopard, A. Masselot and M. Droz, “Competing Species Dynamics”, Eur. Phys. J. B 4, 529–531 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. B. Chopard, M. Droz and S. Galam, “An Evolution Theory in Finite Size Systems”, Eur. Phys. J. B 16, Rapid Note, 575–578 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  3. S. Galam, “Minority Opinion Spreading in Random Geometry”, Eur. Phys. J. B 25 Rapid Note, 403–406 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  4. S. Galam, “The dynamics of minority opinion in democratic debate” Physica A 336, 56–62 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. S. Pajot and S. Galam, “Coexistence of Opposite Global Social Feelings: The Case of Percolation Driven Insecurity ”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 13 1375–1385 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. S. Solomon, G. Weisbuch, L. de Arcangelis, N. Jan and D. Stauffer, “Social percolation models”, Physica A 277/1–2 (2000) 239–247

    Google Scholar 

  7. G. Deffuant, D. Neau, F. Amblard and G. Weisbuch, “Mixing beliefs among interacting agents” Advances in Complex Systems 3 (2000) 87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. K. Sznajd-Weron and J. Sznajd,“Opinion evolution in closed community”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 11 (2000) 1157–1165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. R. Hegselmann and U. Krausse, “Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Condence Models, Analysis and Simulation”, J. Artif. Soc. Social Sim 5 (2002) no. 3

    Google Scholar 

  10. F. Slanina and H. Lavicka, “Analytical results for the Sznajd model of opinion formation,” Eur. Phys. J. B 35 (2003) 279–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. M. Mobilia and S. Redner, “Majority versus minority dynamics: Phase transition in an interacting two-state spin system”, Phys. Rev. E 68 (2003) 046106 (1–11)

    Google Scholar 

  12. L. Behera and F. Schweitzer, “On Spatial Consensus Formation: Is the Sznajd Model Different from a Voter Model?”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 14 (2003) 1331–1354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. C. J. Tessone, R. Toral, P. Amengual, H.S. Wio, and M. San Miguel, “Neighborhood models of minority opinion spreading”, Eur. Phys. J. B 39 (2004) 535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. M. C. Gonzalez, A. O. Sousa and H. J. Herrmann,“Opinion formation on a deterministic pseudo-fractal network”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 15 No. 1 (2004) 45–57

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. J. Schneider and C. Hirtreiter, “The Impact of election results on the member numbers of the large parties in Bavaria and Germany, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 16 (2005) 1165–1215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. R. Lambiotte and M. Ausloos, “Coexistence of opposite opinions in a network with communities”, eprint (2007) arxiv:physics/0703266

    Google Scholar 

  17. M. Ausloos and F. Petroni, “Statistical dynamics of religions and adherents”, Euro. Phys. Lett. 77 (2007) 38002 (1–4)

    Google Scholar 

  18. S. Fortunato and C. Castellano, “Scaling and Universality in Proportional Elections”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 138701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. C. Castellano, S. Fortunato and V. Loreto, “Statistical physics of social dynamics”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 591–646 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. P. Contucci and S. Ghirlanda, “Modeling Society with Statistical Mechanics: an Application to Cultural Contact and Immigration”, Quality and Quantity 41 (2007) 569–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kulakowski and Nawojczyk, “The Galam Model of Minority Opinion Spreading and the Marriage Gap”, eprint (2007) arXiv:physics/0703268

    Google Scholar 

  22. R. Lambiotte, J. Saramaki, V. D. Blondel, “Dynamics of latent voters”, arXiv:0811.1464v1 [physics.soc-ph]

    Google Scholar 

  23. A. C. R. Martins, “Continuous opinions and discrete Actions in opinion dynamics problems”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 19, 617–624 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. A. C. R. Martins, “Mobility and Social Network Effects on Extremist Opinions”, Phys. Rev. E 78, 036104 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. R. Vicente, A. C. R. Martins and N. Caticha, “Opinion Dynamics of Learning Agents: Does Seeking Consensus Lead to Disagreement?”, J. Stat. Mec. P03015 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  26. A. C. R. Martins, C. B. Pereira and R. Vicente, “An Opinion Dynamics Model for the Diffusion of Innovations”, arXiv:0809.5114v3 [physics.soc-ph]

    Google Scholar 

  27. S. Galam, “Heterogeneous beliefs, segregation, and extremism in the making of public opinions”, Phys. Rev. E 71, 046123-1-5 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  28. S. Galam, “Local dynamics vs. social mechanisms: A unifying frame”, Europhys. Lett. 70, 705–711 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. S. Galam, “Les mathématiques s’invitent dans le débat européen”, Interview par P. Lehir, Le Monde, Samedi 26 Février, 23 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  30. S. Galam, “Les mathématiques s’invitent dans le débat européen”, Le Monde, Lundi 11 Avril, 15 (2005), Reproduced in the international weekly selection of Le Monde 2005

    Google Scholar 

  31. S. Galam, “Les mathématiques s’invitent dans le débat européen”, Le Monde, Lundi 11 Avril, 15 (2005), Reproduced in “TA NEA”, Greek daily newspaper March 3 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  32. S. Galam, “Modeling Rumors: The No Plane Pentagon French Hoax Case”, Physica A 320, 571–580 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. S. Galam, “Les réformes sont-elles impossibles?”, Le Monde, Mardi 28 Mars, 18–19 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  34. S. Galam, “Quand les réformes démocratiques butent sur les lois physiques”, Entretien, Sciences et Vie 1017, 92–97, Juin (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  35. S. Galam, “Notre avenir en équations”, Entretien, Le Minotaure, 554–559 2, Juin (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  36. S. Galam, “Il faut bien plus qu’une majorité ”, Tribune, Décisio N 7 (www.decisio.info), Janvier (2004)

  37. S. Galam, “L’opinion se modélise”, Le 8 d’Entrecom, 5–6 2, Mai (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  38. S. Galam, “Contrarian deterministic effect: the hung elections scenario”, Physica A 333, 453–460 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. S. Galam and F. Jacobs, “The role of inflexible minorities in the breaking of democratic opinion dynamics”, Physica A 381 366–376 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. C. Borghesi and S. Galam, “Chaotic, staggered, and polarized dynamics in opinion forming: The contrarian effect”, Phys. Rev. E 73 066118 (1–9) (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  41. D. Stauffer and S. A. Sa Martins, “Simulation of Galam’s contrarian opinions on percolative lattices”, Physica A 334 (2004) 558–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. M. S. de la Lama, J. M. López and H. S. Wio, “Spontaneous emergence of contrarian-like behaviour in an opinion spreading model”, Europhys. Lett. 72, (2005) 851–857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. H. S. Wio, M. S. de la Lama and J. M. Lópeza, “Contrarian-like behavior and system size stochastic resonance in an opinion spreading model”, Physica A 371 (2006) 108–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. S. Galam, “From 2000 Bush–Gore to 2006 Italian elections: voting at fifty–fifty and the contrarian effect”, Quality and Quantity Journal 41 579–589 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. S. Galam, “Les scientifiques ont perdu le Nord”, (2008) Plon, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  46. S. Galam, “Political paradoxes of majority rule voting and hierarchical systems”, Int. J. General Systems 18, 191–200 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. S. Gekle, L. Peliti, and S. Galam, “Opinion dynamics in a three-choice system”, Eur. Phys. J. B 45, 569–575 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. A. O. Sousa, K. Malarz, and S. Galam, “Reshuffling Spins with Short Range Interactions: When sociophysics produces physical results”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 16 1507–1517 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. S. Galam, B. Chopard and M. Droz, “Killer geometries in competing species dynamics”, Physica A 314, 256–263 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. S. Galam and J. P. Radomski, “Cancerous tumor: the high frequency of a rare event”, Phys. Rev. E 63, 51907–51911 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. S. Galam, “Pourquoi des élections si serrées ?”, Le Monde, Mercredi 20 Septembre, 22 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CREA, Boulevard Victor 32, 75015, Paris, France

    Serge Galam

Authors
  1. Serge Galam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Galam, S. (2012). The Modeling of Opinion Dynamics. In: Sociophysics. Understanding Complex Systems. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2032-3_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation