IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0218729.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of hypocrisy on opinion formation: A dynamic model

Author

Listed:
  • Michael T Gastner
  • Károly Takács
  • Máté Gulyás
  • Zsuzsanna Szvetelszky
  • Beáta Oborny

Abstract

Humans have a demonstrated tendency to copy or imitate the behavior and attitude of others and actively influence each other’s opinions. In plenty of empirical contexts, publicly revealed opinions are not necessarily in line with internal opinions, causing complex social influence dynamics. We study to what extent hypocrisy is sustained during opinion formation and how hidden opinions change the convergence to consensus in a group. We build and analyze a modified version of the voter model with hypocrisy in a complete graph with a neutral competition between two alternatives. We compare the process from various initial conditions, varying the proportions between the two opinions in the external (revealed) and internal (hidden) layer. According to our results, hypocrisy always prolongs the time needed for reaching a consensus. In a complete graph, this time span increases linearly with group size. We find that the group-level opinion emerges in two steps: (1) a fast and directional process, during which the number of the two kinds of hypocrites equalizes; and (2) a slower, random drift of opinions. During stage (2), the ratio of opinions in the external layer is approximately equal to the ratio in the internal layer; that is, the hidden opinions do not differ significantly from the revealed ones at the group level. We furthermore find that the initial abundances of opinions, but not the initial prevalence of hypocrisy, predicts the mean consensus time and determines the opinions’ probabilities of winning. These insights highlight the unimportance of hypocrisy in consensus formation under neutral conditions. Our results have important societal implications in relation to hidden voter preferences in polls and improve our understanding of opinion formation in a more realistic setting than that of conventional voter models.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael T Gastner & Károly Takács & Máté Gulyás & Zsuzsanna Szvetelszky & Beáta Oborny, 2019. "The impact of hypocrisy on opinion formation: A dynamic model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-21, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0218729
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218729
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0218729
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0218729&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0218729?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. Galam, Serge & Jacobs, Frans, 2007. "The role of inflexible minorities in the breaking of democratic opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 381(C), pages 366-376.
    2. Amblard, Frédéric & Deffuant, Guillaume, 2004. "The role of network topology on extremism propagation with the relative agreement opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 343(C), pages 725-738.
    3. Ivar Krumpal, 2013. "Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2025-2047, June.
    4. Andreas Flache & Michael Mäs & Thomas Feliciani & Edmund Chattoe-Brown & Guillaume Deffuant & Sylvie Huet & Jan Lorenz, 2017. "Models of Social Influence: Towards the Next Frontiers," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(4), pages 1-2.
    5. Gary Mckeown & Noel Sheehy, 2006. "Mass Media and Polarisation Processes in the Bounded Confidence Model of Opinion Dynamics," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11.
    6. Axelrod, Robert, 1986. "An Evolutionary Approach to Norms," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(4), pages 1095-1111, December.
    7. Nicole L. Waters & Valerie P. Hans, 2009. "A Jury of One: Opinion Formation, Conformity, and Dissent on Juries," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 513-540, September.
    8. Chung-Yuan Huang & Tzai-Hung Wen, 2014. "A Novel Private Attitude and Public Opinion Dynamics Model for Simulating Pluralistic Ignorance and Minority Influence," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 17(3), pages 1-8.
    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. Lütz, Alessandra F. & Wardil, Lucas, 2024. "The evolution of pluralistic ignorance," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 647(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. 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).
    2. Luo, Yun & Li, Yuke & Sun, Chudi & Cheng, Chun, 2022. "Adapted Deffuant–Weisbuch model with implicit and explicit opinions," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 596(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2020. "A Survey on Nonstrategic Models of Opinion Dynamics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-29, December.
    5. Maciel, Marcelo V. & Martins, André C.R., 2020. "Ideologically motivated biases in a multiple issues opinion model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 553(C).
    6. Martins, André C.R., 2022. "Extremism definitions in opinion dynamics models," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 589(C).
    7. 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).
    8. Hirofumi Takesue, 2021. "A Noisy Opinion Formation Model with Two Opposing Mass Media," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 24(4), pages 1-3.
    9. Fan, Kangqi & Pedrycz, Witold, 2015. "Emergence and spread of extremist opinions," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 436(C), pages 87-97.
    10. Cui, Peng-Bi, 2023. "Exploring the foundation of social diversity and coherence with a novel attraction–repulsion model framework," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 618(C).
    11. Runolfsson Solvason Birgir T., 1992. "Ordered Anarchy: Evolution Of The Decentralized Legal Order In The Icelandic Commonwealth," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2-3), pages 333-352, June.
    12. Aycinena, Diego & Bogliacino, Francesco & Kimbrough, Erik O., 2024. "Measuring norms: Assessing the threat of social desirability bias to the Bicchieri and Xiao elicitation method," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 225-239.
    13. Olav Schram Stokke, 1990. "The Northern Environment: Is Cooperation Coming?," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 512(1), pages 58-68, November.
    14. repec:osf:agrixi:xutyz_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Mauricio G. Villena & Marcelo J. Villena, 2004. "Evolutionary Game Theory and Thorstein Veblen’s Evolutionary Economics: Is EGT Veblenian?," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(3), pages 585-610, September.
    16. Crokidakis, Nuno & Sigaud, Lucas, 2021. "Modeling the evolution of drinking behavior: A Statistical Physics perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 570(C).
    17. Craig A. Depken & Peter A. Groothuis & Mark C. Strazicich, 2020. "Evolution Of Community Deterrence: Evidence From The National Hockey League," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 38(2), pages 289-303, April.
    18. Dimitris Tsintsaris & Milan Tsompanoglou & Evangelos Ioannidis, 2024. "Dynamics of Social Influence and Knowledge in Networks: Sociophysics Models and Applications in Social Trading, Behavioral Finance and Business," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-27, April.
    19. Sjöstedt, Martin & Sundström, Aksel & Jagers, Sverker C. & Ntuli, Herbert, 2022. "Governance through community policing: What makes citizens report poaching of wildlife to state officials?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    20. Tricia Koroknay†Palicz & Joao Montalvao, 2020. "Sex, Lies, and Surveys: The Role of Interviewer Characteristics," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(4), pages 3313-3324.
    21. 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.

    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:plo:pone00:0218729. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.