Social Depolarization and Diversity of Opinions—Unified ABM Framework

Abstract

Most sociophysics opinion dynamics simulations assume that contacts between agents lead to greater similarity of opinions, and that there is a tendency for agents having similar opinions to group together. These mechanisms result, in many types of models, in significant polarization, understood as separation between groups of agents having conflicting opinions. The addition of inflexible agents (zealots) or mechanisms, which drive conflicting opinions even further apart, only exacerbates these polarizing processes. Using a universal mathematical framework, formulated in the language of utility functions, we present novel simulation results. They combine polarizing tendencies with mechanisms potentially favoring diverse, non-polarized environments. The simulations are aimed at answering the following question: How can non-polarized systems exist in stable configurations? The framework enables easy introduction, and study, of the effects of external “pro-diversity”, and its contribution to the utility function. Specific examples presented in this paper include an extension of the classic square geometry Ising-like model, in which agents modify their opinions, and a dynamic scale-free network system with two different mechanisms promoting local diversity, where agents modify the structure of the connecting network while keeping their opinions stable. Despite the differences between these models, they show fundamental similarities in results in terms of the existence of low temperature, stable, locally and globally diverse states, i.e., states in which agents with differing opinions remain closely linked. While these results do not answer the socially relevant question of how to combat the growing polarization observed in many modern democratic societies, they open a path towards modeling polarization diminishing activities. These, in turn, could act as guidance for implementing actual depolarization social strategies.

Social Depolarization: Blume–Capel Model

“…We assume that in each of the three political groups, each individual has preferences with respect to several key political issues [11,34]. These individual preferences range between extremely left-leaning and extremely right-leaning, but more or less aligned with the positions taken by their respective parties.…”

“…Although research on depolarization is not recent (e.g., [30,31]), in Ref. [5], it is observed that, with a few exceptions [32][33][34], there are no corresponding definitions, measures, and models for depolarization.…”

Unanimity, Coexistence, and Rigidity: Three Sides of Polarization

“…In the last years, the phenomenon of political polarization has become an issue of major concern among scholars, pundits, journalists, and politicians [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Indeed, the current polarization of modern societies is often perceived as a direct and immediate threat to the stability of democratic societies.…”