Advertisement

Sociophysics pp 101-120 | Cite as

Universal Features of Group Decision Making

  • Serge Galam
Chapter
Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)

Abstract

Anyone familiar with the so-called Ising ferromagnetic model of modern statistical physics would certainly be tempted to make a connection with the behavior of people. Its major feature relies on its incredible universality. Many situations in the world are governed by the emergence of a global order from local interactions. It has proven very powerful in explaining the properties of many different physical systems. It is therefore a very appealing universal model, which could certainly also apply to a large spectrum of social situations. Any book on statistical mechanics will provide an introduction to the Ising model. Among them, I recommend the books by Pathria, Reif, and Ma [1, 2, 3].

Keywords

Ising Model Social Representation Collective Choice Group Choice Social Field 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    R. K. Pathria, Statistical Mechanics, Elsevier Science and Technology (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Reif, Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics, New èdition, Waveland Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S.-k. Ma, Statistical Mechanics, World Scientific (1985)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Galam, Y. Gefen and Y. Shapir, “Sociophysics: A mean behavior model for the process of strike”, Math. J. of Sociology 9, 1–13 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Galam and S. Moscovici, “Towards a theory of collective phenomena: Consensus and attitude changes in groups”, Euro. J. of Social Psy. 21, 49–74 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Galam and S. Moscovici, “Compromise versus polarization in group decision making”, in Defense Decision Making, R. Avenhaus, H. Karkar and M. Rudnianski (Eds), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 40–51 (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Galam and S. Moscovici, “A theory of collective decision making in hierarchical and non-hierarchical groups”, Russian Psy. J. 13, 93–103 (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Galam and S. Moscovici, “Towards a theory of collective phenomena: II. Conformity and power”, Euro. J. of Social Psy., 24, 481–495 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Galam and S. Moscovici, “Towards a theory of collective phenomena: III. Conflicts and forms of power”, Euro. J. of Social Psy., 25, 217–229 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Galam and S. Moscovici, “Towards a theory of collective phenomena. I: Consensus and attitude change in groups”, European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 49–74 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Davis, “ Group decision and social interactions: A theory of social decision scheme”, Psychological Review, 80, 97–125 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Galam, “When humans interact like atoms”, Understanding group behavior, Vol. I, Chap. 12, 293–312, Davis and Witte, Eds, Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., New Jersey (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Galam, “Rational group decision making: a random field Ising model at T = 0”, Physica A, 238, 66–80 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Galam, “Universality of Group Decision Making”,  Traffic and Granular Flow ’99 D. Helbing et al, Eds., Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Galam and J. D. Zucker, “From Individual Choice to Group Decision Making”, Physica A 287, 644–659 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Moscovici and M. Zavalloni, “ The group as a polarizer of attitudes”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125–135 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Stauffer, “Ising spinodal decomposition at T = 0 in one to five dimensions”, J. Phys. A 27, 5029 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sh-k Ma, Modern Theory of Critical Phenomena, The Benjamin Inc.: Reading MA (1976)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. C. Turner, “Rediscovering the Social Group”, Basil Blackwell: Oxford (1987)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. Burnstein, and A. Vinokur, “Testing two classes of theories about group induced shifts in individual choices”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 123–137 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Moscovici, Social influence and social change, Academic Press: London (1976)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Serge Galam
    • 1
  1. 1.CREAParisFrance

Personalised recommendations