IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v7y2019i10p917-d272981.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling of the Public Opinion Polarization Process with the Considerations of Individual Heterogeneity and Dynamic Conformity

Author

Listed:
  • Tinggui Chen

    (School of Statistics and Mathematics, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China
    School of Management and E-Business, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Qianqian Li

    (School of Management and E-Business, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Jianjun Yang

    (Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, University of North Georgia, Oakwood, GA 30566, USA)

  • Guodong Cong

    (School of Tourism and Urban-Rural Planning, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Gongfa Li

    (Hubei Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmission and Manufacturing Engineering, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430081, China)

Abstract

Nowadays, hot issues are likely become bipolar or multipolar after heated discussion on the Internet. This article is focused on the study of the polarization phenomenon and establishes a public opinion polarization model with the considerations of individual heterogeneity and dynamic conformity. At first, this article introduces the dynamic changing function of an individual’s conformity tendency to other’s attitudes in the interaction process. It further defines the influential weight between different interactive individuals, and expands the interactive individual from complete homogeneity to initial attitude heterogeneity, and finally, conformity heterogeneity. Then, through simulation experiments, we find that the degree of changing in individual attitude is limited. That is, it is difficult for the individuals who have one directional attitude at the initial time to change into another opposite attitude through interaction. In addition, individuals with low conformity within a certain threshold are more likely to form polarization. Finally, the rationality and effectiveness of the proposed model are verified by the typical case “Mimeng Event”.

Suggested Citation

  • Tinggui Chen & Qianqian Li & Jianjun Yang & Guodong Cong & Gongfa Li, 2019. "Modeling of the Public Opinion Polarization Process with the Considerations of Individual Heterogeneity and Dynamic Conformity," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-33, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:7:y:2019:i:10:p:917-:d:272981
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/7/10/917/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/7/10/917/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin C. McGuire & Mancur Olson, 1998. "The Economics of Autocracy and Majority Rule: The Invisible Hand and the Use of Force," International Economic Association Series, in: Silvio Borner & Martin Paldam (ed.), The Political Dimension of Economic Growth, chapter 3, pages 38-73, Palgrave Macmillan.
    2. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," NBER Working Papers 23089, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Guillaume Deffuant & Frederic Amblard & Gérard Weisbuch, 2002. "How Can Extremism Prevail? a Study Based on the Relative Agreement Interaction Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(4), pages 1-1.
    4. Fu, Guiyuan & Zhang, Weidong & Li, Zhijun, 2015. "Opinion dynamics of modified Hegselmann–Krause model in a group-based population with heterogeneous bounded confidence," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 419(C), pages 558-565.
    5. Giulietti, Corrado & Wahba, Jackline & Zenou, Yves, 2018. "Strong versus weak ties in migration," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 111-137.
    6. Alina Sîrbu & Dino Pedreschi & Fosca Giannotti & János Kertész, 2019. "Algorithmic bias amplifies opinion fragmentation and polarization: A bounded confidence model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-20, March.
    7. Cass Sunstein, 2008. "Neither Hayek nor Habermas," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 87-95, January.
    8. Duncan J. Watts & Steven H. Strogatz, 1998. "Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks," Nature, Nature, vol. 393(6684), pages 440-442, June.
    9. Wander Jager & Frédéric Amblard, 2005. "Uniformity, Bipolarization and Pluriformity Captured as Generic Stylized Behavior with an Agent-Based Simulation Model of Attitude Change," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 295-303, January.
    10. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 211-236, Spring.
    11. Jin Li & Renbin Xiao, 2017. "Agent-Based Modelling Approach for Multidimensional Opinion Polarization in Collective Behaviour," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(2), pages 1-4.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wu, Yue & Li, Linjiao & Yu, Qiannan & Gan, Jiaxin & Zhang, Yi, 2023. "Strategies for reducing polarization in social networks," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    2. Tinggui Chen & Qianqian Li & Peihua Fu & Jianjun Yang & Chonghuan Xu & Guodong Cong & Gongfa Li, 2020. "Public Opinion Polarization by Individual Revenue from the Social Preference Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-29, February.
    3. Tinggui Chen & Yulong Wang & Jianjun Yang & Guodong Cong, 2021. "Modeling Multidimensional Public Opinion Polarization Process under the Context of Derived Topics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-34, January.
    4. Peihua Fu & Bailu Jing & Tinggui Chen & Jianjun Yang & Guodong Cong, 2020. "Modeling Network Public Opinion Propagation with the Consideration of Individual Emotions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-29, September.
    5. Ziyuan Liu & Zhi Li & Weiming Chen & Yunpu Zhao & Hanxun Yue & Zhenzhen Wu, 2020. "Path Optimization of Medical Waste Transport Routes in the Emergent Public Health Event of COVID-19: A Hybrid Optimization Algorithm Based on the Immune–Ant Colony Algorithm," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-18, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tinggui Chen & Yulong Wang & Jianjun Yang & Guodong Cong, 2021. "Modeling Multidimensional Public Opinion Polarization Process under the Context of Derived Topics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-34, January.
    2. Kathie M. d'I. Treen & Hywel T. P. Williams & Saffron J. O'Neill, 2020. "Online misinformation about climate change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(5), September.
    3. Julia Cage & Nicolas Hervé & Marie-Luce Viaud, 2017. "The Production of Information in an Online World: Is Copy Right?," Working Papers hal-03393171, HAL.
    4. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    5. Tetsuro Kobayashi & Fumiaki Taka & Takahisa Suzuki, 2021. "Can “Googling” correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    6. Dean Neu & Gregory D. Saxton & Abu S. Rahaman, 2022. "Social Accountability, Ethics, and the Occupy Wall Street Protests," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 17-31, September.
    7. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    8. Henrik Skaug Sætra, 2021. "AI in Context and the Sustainable Development Goals: Factoring in the Unsustainability of the Sociotechnical System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Fathey Mohammed & Nabil Hasan Al-Kumaim & Ahmed Ibrahim Alzahrani & Yousef Fazea, 2023. "The Impact of Social Media Shared Health Content on Protective Behavior against COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-16, January.
    10. Michele Cantarella & Nicolo' Fraccaroli & Roberto Volpe, 2019. "Does fake news affect voting behaviour?," Department of Economics 0146, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    11. Joël Cariolle & Yasmine Elkhateeb & Mathilde Maurel, 2022. "(Mis-)information technology: Internet use and perception of democracy in Africa," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 22010, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    12. Kerim Peren Arin & Juan A. Lacomba & Francisco Lagos & Deni Mazrekaj & Marcel Thum, 2021. "Misperceptions and Fake News during the Covid-19 Pandemic," CESifo Working Paper Series 9066, CESifo.
    13. Bartosz Wilczek, 2020. "Misinformation and herd behavior in media markets: A cross-national investigation of how tabloids’ attention to misinformation drives broadsheets’ attention to misinformation in political and business," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, November.
    14. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    15. Sumeet Kumar & Binxuan Huang & Ramon Alfonso Villa Cox & Kathleen M. Carley, 2021. "An anatomical comparison of fake-news and trusted-news sharing pattern on Twitter," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 109-133, June.
    16. Julia Cagé & Nicolas Hervé & Marie-Luce Viaud, 2020. "The Production of Information in an Online World," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 87(5), pages 2126-2164.
    17. Zazli Lily Wisker & Robert Neil McKie, 2021. "The effect of fake news on anger and negative word-of-mouth: moderating roles of religiosity and conservatism," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(2), pages 144-153, June.
    18. Roger D. Magarey & Christina M. Trexler, 2020. "Information: a missing component in understanding and mitigating social epidemics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, December.
    19. Denter, Philipp & Ginzburg, Boris, 2021. "Troll Farms and Voter Disinformation," MPRA Paper 109634, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Christoph March & Ina Schieferdecker, 2021. "Technological Sovereignty as Ability, Not Autarky," CESifo Working Paper Series 9139, CESifo.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:7:y:2019:i:10:p:917-:d:272981. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.