The Relative Disagreement Model of Opinion Dynamics: Where Do Extremists Come From?

  • Michael Meadows
  • Dave Cliff
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8221)

Abstract

In this paper we introduce a novel model that can account for the spread of extreme opinions in a human population as a purely local, selforganising process. Our starting point is the well-known and influential Relative Agreement (RA) model of opinion dynamics introduced by Deffuant et al. (2002). The RA model explores the dynamics of opinions in populations that are initially seeded with some number of “extremist” individuals, who hold opinions at the far ends of a continuous spectrum of opinions represented in the abstract RA model as a real value in the range [-1.0, +1.0]; but where the majority of the individuals in the population are, at the outset, “moderates”, holding opinions closer to the central mid-range value of 0.0. Various researchers have demonstrated that the RA model generates opinion dynamics in which the influence of the extremists on the moderates leads, over time, to the distribution of opinion values in the population converging to attractor states that can be qualitatively characterised as one of either uni-polar and bi-polar extremes, or reversion to the centre (“central convergence”). However, a major weakness of the RA model is that it pre-supposes the existence of extremist individuals, and hence says nothing to answer the question of “where do extremists come from?” In this paper, we introduce the Relative Disagreement (RD) model, in which extremist individual arise spontaneously and can then exert influence over moderates, forming large groups of polar extremists, via an entirely internal, self-organisation process. We demonstrate that the RD model can readily exhibit the uni-polar, bi-polar, and central-convergence attractors that characterise the dynamics of the RA model, and hence this is the first paper to describe an opinion dynamic model in which extremist positions can spontaneously arise and spread in a population via a self-organising process where opinion-influencing interactions between any two individuals are characterised not only by the extent to which they agree, but also by the extent to which they disagree.

IWSOS Key Topics

Models of self-organisation in society techniques and tools for modelling self-organising systems self-organisation in complex networks self-organising group and pattern formation social aspects of selforganisation 

References

  1. Amblard, F., Deffuant, G.: The role of network topology on extremism propagation with the Relative Agreement opinion dynamics. Physica A 343, 725–738 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. The Relative Agreement model of opinion dynamics in populations with complex social network structure. Submiited to CompleNet 2013: The Fourth International Workshop on Complex Networks, Berlin (March 2013)Google Scholar
  3. Baron, R., Byrne, D.: Social Psychology, 6th edn. Allyn and Bacon, Boston (1991)Google Scholar
  4. Brehm, S., Brehm, J.: Psychological reactance: a theory of freedom and control. Academic Press, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  5. Chatterjee, S., Seneta, E.: Towards Consensus: Some Convergence Theorems on Repeated Averaging. Journal of Applied Probability 14(1), 88–97 (1977)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. De Groot, M.: Reaching a Consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association 69(345), 118–121 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deffuant, G., Neau, D., Amblard, F.: Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Advances in Complex Systems 3, 87–98 (2000); Deffuant, G., Amblard, F., Weisbuch, G., Faure, T.: How can extremism prevail? A study based on the relative agreement interaction model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 5(4), 1 (2002) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deffuant, G.: Comparing Extremism Propagation Patterns in Continuous Opinion Models. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9(3), 8 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. Friedkin, N.: Choice Shift and Group Polarization. American Sociological Review 64(6), 856–875 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hegselmann, R., Krause, U.: Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: models, analysis and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 5(3), 2 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. Klemm, K., Eguíluz, V.: Growing Scale-Free Networks with Small-World Behavior. Physical Review 65, 057102 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. Kozma, B., Barrat, A.: Consensus formation on adaptive networks. Physical Review E 77, 016102 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krause, U.: A Discrete Nonlinear and Non-Autonomous Model of Consensus Formation. In: Communications in Difference Equations: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Difference Equations, August 27-31, 1998, pp. 227–236 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. Lorenz, J., Deffuant, G.: The role of network topology on extremism propagation with the relative agreement opinion dynamics. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 343, 725–738 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. Lorenz, J.: Continuous Opinion Dynamics under Bounded Confidence: A Survey. International Journal of Modern Physics C 18, 1–20 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meadows, M., Cliff, D.: Reexamining the Relative Agreement Model of Opinion Dynamics. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 15(4), 4 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. Sobkowicz, P.: Studies on opinion stability for small dynamic networks with opportunistic agents. International Journal of Modern Physics C 20(10), 1645–1662 (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Meadows
    • 1
  • Dave Cliff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BristolBristolU.K.

Personalised recommendations