IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hin/complx/2864124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opinion Dynamics Model Based on Cognitive Styles: Field-Dependence and Field-Independence

Author

Listed:
  • Xi Chen
  • Shen Zhao
  • Wei Li

Abstract

Two distinct cognitive styles exist from the perspective of cognition: field-dependence and field-independence. In most public opinion dynamics models, people only consider that individuals update their opinions through interactions with other individuals. This represents the field-dependent cognitive style of the individual. The field-independent cognitive style is ignored in such cases. We consider both cognitive styles in public opinion dynamics and propose a public opinion evolution model based on cognitive styles (CS model). The opinions of neighbors and experiences of the individual represent field-dependent cognition and field-independent cognition, respectively, and the individual combines both cognitive styles to update his/her own opinion. In the proposed model, the experience parameter is designed to represent the weight of the current opinion in terms of the individual’s experiences and the cognitive parameter is proposed to represent the tendencies of his/her cognitive styles. We experimentally verify that the CS and Hegselmann–Krause (HK) models are similar in terms of public opinion evolution trends; with an increase in radius of confidence, the steady state of a social system shifts from divergence to polarization and eventually reaches consensus. Considering that individuals from different cultures have different degrees of inclination for the two styles, we present experiments focusing on cognitive parameter and experience parameter and analyze the evolutionary trends of opinion dynamics in different styles. We find that when an individual has a greater tendency toward the field-independent cognitive style under the influence of culture, the time required for a social system to reach a steady state will increase; the system will have greater difficultly in reaching consensus, mirroring the evolutionary trends in public opinion in the context of eastern and western cultures. The CS model constitutes an opinion dynamics model that is more consistent with the real world and may also serve as a basis for future cross-cultural research.

Suggested Citation

  • Xi Chen & Shen Zhao & Wei Li, 2019. "Opinion Dynamics Model Based on Cognitive Styles: Field-Dependence and Field-Independence," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-12, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:hin:complx:2864124
    DOI: 10.1155/2019/2864124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/8503/2019/2864124.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/8503/2019/2864124.xml
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1155/2019/2864124?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert Gintis, 2000. "Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2000-02, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    2. Jiongming Su & Baohong Liu & Qi Li & Hongxu Ma, 2014. "Coevolution of Opinions and Directed Adaptive Networks in a Social Group," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 17(2), pages 1-4.
    3. Xi Chen & Xiao Zhang & Yong Xie & Wei Li, 2017. "Opinion Dynamics of Social-Similarity-Based Hegselmann–Krause Model," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-12, December.
    4. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2002. "Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(3), pages 1-2.
    5. Liang, Haili & Yang, Yiping & Wang, Xiaofan, 2013. "Opinion dynamics in networks with heterogeneous confidence and influence," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(9), pages 2248-2256.
    6. 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.
    7. Miguel Pineda & Raúl Toral & Emilio Hernández-García, 2013. "The noisy Hegselmann-Krause model for opinion dynamics," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 86(12), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Jan Lorenz, 2007. "Continuous Opinion Dynamics Under Bounded Confidence: A Survey," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1819-1838.
    9. Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron & Józef Sznajd, 2000. "Opinion Evolution In Closed Community," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(06), pages 1157-1165.
    10. Chen, Shuwei & Glass, David H. & McCartney, Mark, 2016. "Characteristics of successful opinion leaders in a bounded confidence model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 449(C), pages 426-436.
    11. Sushil Bikhchandani & David Hirshleifer & Ivo Welch, 1998. "Learning from the Behavior of Others: Conformity, Fads, and Informational Cascades," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 151-170, Summer.
    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. Han, Wenchen & Feng, Yuee & Qian, Xiaolan & Yang, Qihui & Huang, Changwei, 2020. "Clusters and the entropy in opinion dynamics on complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 559(C).
    2. Wang, Chaoqian, 2021. "Opinion dynamics with bilateral propaganda and unilateral information blockade," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 566(C).

    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. Hou, Jian & Li, Wenshan & Jiang, Mingyue, 2021. "Opinion dynamics in modified expressed and private model with bounded confidence," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 574(C).
    2. Catherine A. Glass & David H. Glass, 2021. "Social Influence of Competing Groups and Leaders in Opinion Dynamics," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 58(3), pages 799-823, October.
    3. Han, Wenchen & Feng, Yuee & Qian, Xiaolan & Yang, Qihui & Huang, Changwei, 2020. "Clusters and the entropy in opinion dynamics on complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 559(C).
    4. Song, Xiao & Shi, Wen & Tan, Gary & Ma, Yaofei, 2015. "Multi-level tolerance opinion dynamics in military command and control networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 437(C), pages 322-332.
    5. Xi Chen & Xiao Zhang & Yong Xie & Wei Li, 2017. "Opinion Dynamics of Social-Similarity-Based Hegselmann–Krause Model," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-12, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Wang, Huanjing & Shang, Lihui, 2015. "Opinion dynamics in networks with common-neighbors-based connections," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 421(C), pages 180-186.
    8. G Jordan Maclay & Moody Ahmad, 2021. "An agent based force vector model of social influence that predicts strong polarization in a connected world," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-42, November.
    9. Song, Xiao & Shi, Wen & Ma, Yaofei & Yang, Chen, 2015. "Impact of informal networks on opinion dynamics in hierarchically formal organization," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 436(C), pages 916-924.
    10. Jalili, Mahdi, 2013. "Social power and opinion formation in complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(4), pages 959-966.
    11. Takesue, Hirofumi, 2023. "Relative opinion similarity leads to the emergence of large clusters in opinion formation models," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 622(C).
    12. Han, Wenchen & Gao, Shun & Huang, Changwei & Yang, Junzhong, 2022. "Non-consensus states in circular opinion model with repulsive interaction," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 585(C).
    13. Huang, Changwei & Dai, Qionglin & Han, Wenchen & Feng, Yuee & Cheng, Hongyan & Li, Haihong, 2018. "Effects of heterogeneous convergence rate on consensus in opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 499(C), pages 428-435.
    14. Fang Wu & Bernardo A. Huberman, 2004. "Social Structure and Opinion Formation," Computational Economics 0407002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Ding, Fei & Liu, Yun & Shen, Bo & Si, Xia-Meng, 2010. "An evolutionary game theory model of binary opinion formation," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 389(8), pages 1745-1752.
    16. Glass, Catherine A. & Glass, David H., 2021. "Opinion dynamics of social learning with a conflicting source," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    17. Chen, Shuwei & Glass, David H. & McCartney, Mark, 2016. "Characteristics of successful opinion leaders in a bounded confidence model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 449(C), pages 426-436.
    18. Pedraza, Lucía & Pinasco, Juan Pablo & Semeshenko, Viktoriya & Balenzuela, Pablo, 2023. "Mesoscopic analytical approach in a three state opinion model with continuous internal variable," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    19. Xi Chen & Zhan Wu & Hongwei Wang & Wei Li, 2017. "Impact of Heterogeneity on Opinion Dynamics: Heterogeneous Interaction Model," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-10, April.
    20. Huang, Changwei & Hou, Yongzhao & Han, Wenchen, 2023. "Coevolution of consensus and cooperation in evolutionary Hegselmann–Krause dilemma with the cooperation cost," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hin:complx:2864124. 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: Mohamed Abdelhakeem (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.hindawi.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.