IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jas/jasssj/2016-101-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opinion Communication on Contested Topics: How Empirics and Arguments can Improve Social Simulation

Author

Abstract

The effect of social interactions on how opinions are developed and changed over time is crucial to public processes that involve citizens and their points of view. In this opinion dynamics exercise, we address the topic of nuclear waste repositories in Switzerland and suggest a more realistic investigation of public opinion using agent-based modeling in combination with empirical data and sociopsychological theory. Empirical data obtained from an online questionnaire (N = 841) is used for the initialization of the model, whose agents directly represent the participants. We use social judgment theory (SJT) to describe how opinions can be adapted during social interactions, including through mechanisms of contrast and assimilation. Furthermore, we focus on the definition of “opinion†itself, claiming that working with disaggregated opinions (i.e., arguments) can play a determining role if one aims to capture real-world mechanisms of opinion dynamics. Simulation results show different patterns for the three different argument categories used for this specific topic (i.e., risk, benefit, and process), suggesting a mutual influence between an individual’s initial knowledge and evaluations and an individual’s social dynamics and opinion changes. The importance of content-related and empirical information, as well as the theory and mechanisms used in the social simulation, are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Annalisa Stefanelli & Roman Seidl, 2017. "Opinion Communication on Contested Topics: How Empirics and Arguments can Improve Social Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(4), pages 1-3.
  • Handle: RePEc:jas:jasssj:2016-101-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jasss.org/20/4/3/3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:jas:jasssj:2016-101-3. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Francesco Renzini (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.