IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0338486.html

Co-evolution of groups and opinions in an agent-based model

Author

Listed:
  • Duncan Cassells
  • Antoine Vendeville
  • Lionel Tabourier
  • Pedro Ramaciotti

Abstract

This study explores a model for the co-evolution of opinions and groups, related to opinion polarization and group identity in opinion dynamics. While traditional models focus on pairwise interactions, we incorporate the notion of groups thereby allowing agents to identify other agents as in-group or out-group. By modifying key parameters we examine how understanding interactions as in-group or out-group affects the convergence or divergence of opinions. Our findings reveal that attitude towards out-group plays a leading role in the polarization of such systems, while in-group interactions can temper extreme opinion shifts or even fragment groups. This model offers an understanding of the complex interplay between group identification and polarization, providing a contribution to ongoing debates about segregation and sectarianism in public and private spheres.

Suggested Citation

  • Duncan Cassells & Antoine Vendeville & Lionel Tabourier & Pedro Ramaciotti, 2025. "Co-evolution of groups and opinions in an agent-based model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(12), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0338486
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0338486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0338486
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0338486&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0338486?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. Isaac Waller & Ashton Anderson, 2021. "Quantifying social organization and political polarization in online platforms," Nature, Nature, vol. 600(7888), pages 264-268, December.
    2. James N. Druckman & Samara Klar & Yanna Krupnikov & Matthew Levendusky & John Barry Ryan, 2021. "Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 28-38, January.
    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. Benjamin D. Horne & Natalie M. Rice & Catherine A. Luther & Damian J. Ruck & Joshua Borycz & Suzie L. Allard & Michael Fitzgerald & Oleg Manaev & Brandon C. Prins & Maureen Taylor & R. Alexander Bentl, 2023. "Generational effects of culture and digital media in former Soviet Republics," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Lucia Freira & Marco Sartorio & Cynthia Boruchowicz & Florencia Lopez Boo & Joaquin Navajas, 2021. "The interplay between partisanship, forecasted COVID-19 deaths, and support for preventive policies," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Mark W Susmann & Graham N Dixon & Brad J Bushman & R Kelly Garrett, 2022. "Correcting misperceptions of gun policy support can foster intergroup cooperation between gun owners and non-gun owners," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-13, June.
    4. James N. Druckman, 2022. "Threats to Science: Politicization, Misinformation, and Inequalities," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 8-24, March.
    5. Otto Simonsson & Simon B Goldberg & Joseph Marks & Liuxin Yan & Jayanth Narayanan, 2022. "Bridging the (Brexit) divide: Effects of a brief befriending meditation on affective polarization," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-9, May.
    6. repec:osf:osfxxx:y79u5_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. James Flamino & Alessandro Galeazzi & Stuart Feldman & Michael W. Macy & Brendan Cross & Zhenkun Zhou & Matteo Serafino & Alexandre Bovet & Hernán A. Makse & Boleslaw K. Szymanski, 2023. "Political polarization of news media and influencers on Twitter in the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(6), pages 904-916, June.
    8. Golman, Russell, 2023. "Acceptable discourse: Social norms of beliefs and opinions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    9. Pomerance, Justin & Van Boven, Leaf, 2025. "Party over product: People exaggerate the influence of political cues on others’ consumption preferences," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 153-170.
    10. Ioannis Kareklas & Devipsita Bhattacharya & Darrel D. Muehling & Victoria Kisekka, 2023. "Reexamining health messages in the political age: The politicization of the COVID‐19 pandemic and its detrimental effects on vaccine hesitancy," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 1120-1150, July.
    11. Hu, Haibo & Chen, Wenhao & Hu, Yixuan, 2024. "Opinion dynamics in social networks under the influence of mass media," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 482(C).
    12. Grimalda, Gianluca & Murtin, Fabrice & Pipke, David & Putterman, Louis & Sutter, Matthias, 2023. "The politicized pandemic: Ideological polarization and the behavioral response to COVID-19," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    13. Danielsen, Ann Caroline & Lee, Katharine MN & Boulicault, Marion & Rushovich, Tamara & Gompers, Annika & Tarrant, Amelia & Reiches, Meredith & Shattuck-Heidorn, Heather & Miratrix, Luke W. & Richardso, 2022. "Sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes in the United States: Quantifying and contextualizing variation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    14. Janine Aron & John Muellbauer, 2022. "Excess Mortality Versus COVID‐19 Death Rates: A Spatial Analysis of Socioeconomic Disparities and Political Allegiance Across U.S. States," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 68(2), pages 348-392, June.
    15. Danielle Joesten Martin, 2022. "Ideological and partisan biases in ratings of candidate quality in U.S. House elections," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(3), pages 622-634, May.
    16. Astrid Dannenberg & Gunnar Gutsche & Marlene Batzke & Sven Christens & Daniel Engler & Fabian Mankat & Sophia Moeller & Eva Weingaertner & Andreas Ernst & Marcel Lumkowsky & Georg von Wangenheim & Ger, 2022. "The effects of norms on environmental behavior," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202219, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    17. Peiran Ma, 2023. "The Impact of Political Polarization on the COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the United States: A Qualitative Study," Journal of Politics and Law, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 16(2), pages 1-37, May.
    18. Kunhao Yang & Mengyuan Fu, 2024. "Polarized collaboration benefits knowledge production: empirical analyses of the mediating effect of co-production pattern in Wikipedia articles on climate change," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 2677-2699, December.
    19. Facciani, Matthew & Lazić, Aleksandra & Viggiano, Gracemarie & McKay, Tara, 2023. "Political network composition predicts vaccination attitudes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 328(C).
    20. Kuang, Pei & Luca, Davide & Wei, Zhiwu & Yao, Yao, 2023. "Great or grim? Disagreement about Brexit, economic expectations and household spending," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119200, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    21. Max Falkenberg & Fabiana Zollo & Walter Quattrociocchi & Jürgen Pfeffer & Andrea Baronchelli, 2024. "Patterns of partisan toxicity and engagement reveal the common structure of online political communication across countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.

    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:pone00:0338486. 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.