Think then act or act then think?

Abstract

We introduce a new agent-based model of opinion dynamics in which binary opinions of each agent can be measured and described regarding both pre- and post-influence at both of two levels, public and private, vis-à-vis the influence source. The model combines ideas introduced within the q-voter model with noise, proposed by physicists, with the descriptive, four-dimensional model of social response, formulated by social psychologists. We investigate two versions of the same model that differ only by the updating order: an opinion on the public level is updated before an opinion on the private level or vice versa. We show how the results on the macroscopic scale depend on this order. The main finding of this paper is that both models produce the same outcome if one looks only at such a macroscopic variable as the total number of the individuals with positive opinions. However, if also the level of internal harmony (viz., dissonance) is measured, then significant, qualitative differences are seen between these two versions of the model. All results were obtained simultaneously within Monte Carlo simulations and analytical calculations. We discuss the importance of our studies and findings from three points of view: the theory of phase transitions, agent-based modeling of social systems, and social psychology.

Statistical Physics Of Opinion Formation: Is it a SPOOF?

“…[31]. Some of these models distinguish only between two types of response and some between 16 [20,32]. 3…”

“…However, conformity is not the only type of social response that can be introduced into the model. In fact, it is possible to include all of the behaviors described by the most sophisticated models of social response, including four-dimensional model [20,32]. For instance, the second widely recognized social influence, right after conformity, is nonconformity.…”

“…Until now, the experiment that confirms the results obtained with the q-voter model has not been designed yet. We hope that the recent, more intensive cooperation with experimental psychologists [20,21] will change this unfavorable situation. One of the first results that we plan to test is the one obtained very recently which indicates that the group size and its unanimity can play completely different role for anticonformity than for conformity [21].…”

“…Others allow for different sizes of the influence group for distinct nodes [46][47][48], or set a threshold for the number of voters with the same opinion that are necessary to exert the social pressure [13,38]. And yet others differentiate between public and private opinions of voters [20]. In all these cases, the mean-field theory delivered tools to obtain master or rate equations, phase diagrams, or transition points.…”

“…This model together with its extensions seem to be particularly interesting not only from the physical point of view but also from the psychological one. Physicists extensively study various phase transitions it exhibits [6,[11][12][13][14][15][16] whereas psychologists focus on its connections with models of social responses [17][18][19][20][21]. Moreover, the q-voter dynamics serves frequently as a starting point for other models of social processes, including polarization of opinions [22,23], diffusion of innovations [19,24,25], or group formations [26][27][28].…”