IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/phsmap/v623y2023ics0378437123004302.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of social embedding on belief system and its application in online public opinion guidance

Author

Listed:
  • Shang, Cui
  • Zhang, Runtong
  • Zhu, Xiaomin

Abstract

Recently, belief system dynamics has been proposed to model the opinion evolution of a social group on a set of logically interdependent topics (captured by a logic matrix). To analyze the evolution of belief system after a social group embeds into another social group when the two social groups have different ideologies on the logic dependence of topics, we creatively propose an extended multidimensional DeGroot model, which is modeled as the co-evolution of belief systems of two factions under social embedding, where the logic matrices of the two factions are considered as coherently heterogeneous and non-coherently heterogeneous. Through strict theoretical analysis for the proposed model, we demonstrate that social embedding can change a faction’s belief system and quantify the effect under the two heterogeneities. Then, based on social embedding, we propose an embedding method of social robot to guide online public opinion. This method achieves the purpose of controlling online public opinion by establishing one-way communication from leaders in the social network to the social robot and adaptively controlling the belief system of the social robot. To verify the theoretical analysis results and supplement some new findings, we perform simulations to explore the impact of the number of social embeddings and the self-confidence degree of the social group on the time required for the belief system to reach stable state.

Suggested Citation

  • Shang, Cui & Zhang, Runtong & Zhu, Xiaomin, 2023. "The influence of social embedding on belief system and its application in online public opinion guidance," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 623(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:phsmap:v:623:y:2023:i:c:s0378437123004302
    DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2023.128875
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437123004302
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only. Journal offers the option of making the article available online on Science direct for a fee of $3,000

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.physa.2023.128875?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brunson, Jason Cory, 2015. "Triadic analysis of affiliation networks," Network Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(4), pages 480-508, December.
    2. Sabine Matook & Susan A Brown & Johanna Rolf, 2015. "Forming an intention to act on recommendations given via online social networks," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 76-92, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Bindel, David & Kleinberg, Jon & Oren, Sigal, 2015. "How bad is forming your own opinion?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 248-265.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Tushar Vaidya & Thiparat Chotibut & Georgios Piliouras, 2019. "Broken Detailed Balance and Non-Equilibrium Dynamics in Noisy Social Learning Models," Papers 1906.11481, arXiv.org, revised May 2020.
    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. Vaidya, Tushar & Chotibut, Thiparat & Piliouras, Georgios, 2021. "Broken detailed balance and non-equilibrium dynamics in noisy social learning models," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 570(C).
    4. Kareeva, Yulia & Sedakov, Artem & Zhen, Mengke, 2023. "Influence in social networks with stubborn agents: From competition to bargaining," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 444(C).
    5. Muhammad Umar B. Niazi & A. Bülent Özgüler, 2021. "A Differential Game Model of Opinion Dynamics: Accord and Discord as Nash Equilibria," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 137-160, March.
    6. Griffin, Christopher & Squicciarini, Anna & Jia, Feiran, 2022. "Consensus in complex networks with noisy agents and peer pressure," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 608(P1).
    7. Buechel, Berno & Hellmann, Tim & Klößner, Stefan, 2015. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under conformity," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 240-257.
    8. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    9. Andreas Koulouris & Ioannis Katerelos & Theodore Tsekeris, 2013. "Multi-Equilibria Regulation Agent-Based Model of Opinion Dynamics in Social Networks," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 11(1), pages 51-70.
    10. Thomas Moore & Patrick Finley & Nancy Brodsky & Theresa Brown & Benjamin Apelberg & Bridget Ambrose & Robert Glass, 2015. "Modeling Education and Advertising with Opinion Dynamics," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(2), pages 1-7.
    11. George Butler & Gabriella Pigozzi & Juliette Rouchier, 2019. "Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-31, August.
    12. Guillaume Deffuant & Ilaria Bertazzi & Sylvie Huet, 2018. "The Dark Side Of Gossips: Hints From A Simple Opinion Dynamics Model," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-20, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Tiwari, Mukesh & Yang, Xiguang & Sen, Surajit, 2021. "Modeling the nonlinear effects of opinion kinematics in elections: A simple Ising model with random field based study," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).
    15. Saggau, Volker, 2012. "Viele Köche Verderben Den Brei – Agentenbasierte Simulationen Zum Föderalismusdurcheinander Während Der Ehec-Krise," 52nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 26-28, 2012 133052, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    16. Hannah Ãœbler & Stephan Hartmann, 2016. "Simulating Trends in Artificial Influence Networks," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 19(1), pages 1-2.
    17. Si, Xia-Meng & Wang, Wen-Dong & Ma, Yan, 2016. "Role of propagation thresholds in sentiment-based model of opinion evolution with information diffusion," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 451(C), pages 549-559.
    18. 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.
    19. Karataieva, Tatiana & Koshmanenko, Volodymyr & Krawczyk, Małgorzata J. & Kułakowski, Krzysztof, 2019. "Mean field model of a game for power," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 525(C), pages 535-547.
    20. Gabbay, Michael, 2007. "The effects of nonlinear interactions and network structure in small group opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 378(1), pages 118-126.

    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:eee:phsmap:v:623:y:2023:i:c:s0378437123004302. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/physica-a-statistical-mechpplications/ .

    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.