Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Opinion Dynamics Induced by Agents with Particular Goal

  • Published:
Journal of Systems Science and Complexity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The authors investigate the opinion dynamics in a setting where some special agents induce public opinions towards their desired direction, with Particular Goal (PG agents for short) to manipulate beliefs. Based on the bounded confidence model, the authors find PG agents can significantly improve the level of consensus. The authors also study how opinion pattern is influenced by varying the model in terms of changing the network structure, different parameters, and PG agents choosing strategy. The authors conduct the comparison of model results with empirical data from online social networks. The authors hope the study may shade a light on public opinion control and regulation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Oliver P E, Formal models of collective action, Annual Review of Sociology, 1993, 19(1): 271–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mackay C, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Harmony Books, New York, 1852.

    Google Scholar 

  3. LeBon G, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, World Publishing Corporation, Beijing, 1897.

    Google Scholar 

  4. French J R, A formal theory of social power, Psychological Review, 1956, 63(3): 181–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Harary F, Graph theoretic methods in the management sciences, Management Science, 1959, 5(4): 387–403.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. DeGroot M H, Reaching a consensus, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1974, 345: 118–121.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Latane B, The psychology of social impact, American Psychologist, 1981, 36(4): 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Friedkin N E, A Structural Theory of Social Influence, Cambridge University Press, London, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Burt R S, Toward a Structural Theory of Action: Network Models of Social Structure, Perception, and Action, Academic Press, New York, 1982.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Simon H A, Bandwagon and underdog effects and the possibility of election predictions, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1954, 18(3): 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Conover M, Ratkiewicz J, Francisco M, et al., Political polarization on Twitter, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, 2011.

  12. Hong S and Kim S H, Political polarization on Twitter: Implications for the use of social media in digital governments, Government Information Quarterly, 2016, 33(4): 777–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jungherr A, Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review, Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 2016, 13(1): 72–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Raafat R M, Chater N, and Frith C, Herding in humans, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2009, 13(10): 420–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lux T, Rational forecasts or social opinion dynamics, identification of interaction effects in a business climate survey, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2009, 72(2): 638–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Martins A, Pereira C, and Vicente R, An opinion dynamics model for the diffusion of innovations, Physica A Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 2009, 388(16): 3225–3232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Castellano C, Fortunato S, and Loreto V, Statistical physics of social dynamics, Review of Modern Physics, 2007, 81(2), arXiv: 0710.3256v2.

  18. Binney J J, Newman M, Fisher A J, et al., The Theory of Critical Phenomena: An Introduction to the Renormalization Group, Oxford University Press, London, 1992.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Cross M C and Hohenberg P C, Pattern formation outside of equilibrium, Reviews of Modern Physics, 1993, 65: 851–1112.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Sznajd-Weron K and Sznajd J, Opinion evolution in closed community, International Journal of Modern Physics C, 2000, 11(6): 1157–1165.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Callen E and Shapero D, A theory of social imitation, Physics Today, 1974, 27(7): 23–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Galam S, Gefen Y, and Shapir Y, Sociophysics: A new approach of sociological collective behaviour. I. mean-behaviour description of a strike, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1982, 9(1): 1–13.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Weidlich W, Sociodynamics: A Systematic Approach to Mathematical Modelling in the Social Sciences, Courier Corporation, 2006.

  24. Zhu X L, Zhang H T, Sang J P, et al., Ising model on evolution networks and its application on opinion formation, Chinese Physics B, 2014, 23(6): 613–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Clifford P and Sudbury A, A model for spatial conflict, Biometrika, 1973, 60(3): 581–588.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Suchecki K, Eguíluz V M, and San M M, Voter model dynamics in complex networks: Role of dimensionality, disorder, and degree distribution, Physical Review E Statistical Nonlinear and Soft Matter Physics, 2005, 72(32): 036132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Drouffe J M and Godrche C, Coarsening and persistence in a class of stochastic processes, interpolating between the Ising and voter models, Journal of Physics A General Physics, 1999, 32(2): 249–261.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Deffuant G, Neau D, Amblard F, et al., Mixing beliefs among interacting agents, Advances in Complex Systems, 2000, 3(1–4): 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hegselmann R and Krause U, Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis and simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 2002, 5(3): 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Goldstone R L and Janssen M A, Computational models of collective behavior, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2005, 9(9): 424–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dong Y, Ding Z, Martínez L, et al., Managing consensus based on leadership in opinion dynamics, Information Sciences, 2017, 397: 187–205.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Noorazar H, Recent advances in opinion propagation dynamics: A 2020 survey, Eur. Phys. J. Plus., 2020, 135–521.

  33. Zha Q, Kou G, Zhang H, et al., Opinion dynamics in finance and business: A literature review and research opportunities, Financial Innovation, 2020, 6(1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Baddeley M, Herding, social influence and economic decision-making: Socio-psychological and neuroscientific analyses, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 2010, 365(1538): 281–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mason M F, Dyer R, and Norton M I, Neural mechanisms of social influence, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2009, 110(2): 152–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lorenz J, Rauhut H, Schweitzer F, et al., How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2011, 108(22): 9020–9025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Earls M, Herd: How to Change Mass Behaviour by Harnessing Our True Nature, John Wiley Sons, New Jersey, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Onnela J P and Reed-Tsochas F, Spontaneous emergence of social influence in online systems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010, 107(43): 18375–18380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kearns M, Suri S, and Montfort N, An experimental study of the coloring problem on human subject networks, Science, 2006, 313(5788): 824–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Christakis N A and Fowler J H, The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years, New England Journal of Medicine, 2007, 357(4): 370–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Cialdini R B, Influence: Science and Practice, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Watts D J and Dodds P S, Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation, Journal of Consumer Research, 2007, 34(4): 441–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dittmer J C, Consensus formation under bounded confidence, Nonlinear Analysis — Theory Methods and Applications, 2001, 47(7): 4615–4622.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Krawczyk M J, Malarz K, Korff R, et al., Communication and trust in the bounded confidence model, International Conference on Computational Collective Intelligence, Springer, 2010, 90–99.

  45. Afshar M and Asadpour M, Opinion formation by informed agents, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 2010, 13(4): 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pastor-Satorras R and Vespignani A, Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks, Physical Review Letters, 2000, 86(14): 3200–3203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rossi R A and Ahmed N K, The network data repository with interactive graph analytics and visualization, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2015, 4292–4293.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Electronics and Information Engineering (School of Data Science), Taizhou University, Taizhou, 318000, China

    Zhenpeng Li

  2. Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China

    Xijin Tang

  3. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China

    Xijin Tang

  4. Wenzhou University, Wenzhou, 325035, China

    Zhenjie Hong

Authors
  1. Zhenpeng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xijin Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhenjie Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhenpeng Li.

Additional information

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 71661001 and 71730002.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Z., Tang, X. & Hong, Z. Opinion Dynamics Induced by Agents with Particular Goal. J Syst Sci Complex 35, 2319–2335 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-022-1092-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-022-1092-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation