IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rmm/journl/v0y2009i8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Meinungsbildung in Gruppen: Wie tragfaehig sind vereinfachende Modellierungsansaetze?

Author

Listed:
  • Rainer Hegselmann

    (Universitaet Bayreuth)

Abstract

The article describes a radically simplifying model of opinion formation processes. The model abstracts away almost everything. A very common reaction to such an approach is the objection that important factors are not included. The article anticipates ten objections of this type and tries to show how to cope with them without giving up the radically simplifying approach. The strategies that we use can be summarized to a certain heuristics. Following the principles of this heuristics will often allow at least a partial qualitative understanding of real world phenomena. In many areas we probably cannot hope for more.

Suggested Citation

  • Rainer Hegselmann, 2009. "Meinungsbildung in Gruppen: Wie tragfaehig sind vereinfachende Modellierungsansaetze?," Rationality, Markets and Morals, Frankfurt School Verlag, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, vol. 0(8), November.
    • Handle: RePEc:rmm:journl:v:0:y:2009:i:8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rmm-journal.de/downloads/009_hegselmann.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gérard Weisbuch & Guillaume Deffuant & Frederic Amblard & Jean Pierre Nadal, 2001. "Interacting Agents and Continuous Opinions Dynamics," Working Papers 01-11-072, Santa Fe Institute.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2006. "Truth and Cognitive Division of Labour: First Steps Towards a Computer Aided Social Epistemology," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(3), pages 1-10.
    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. Victorien Barbet & Noé Guiraud & Vincent Laperrière & Juliette Rouchier, 2019. "Haggling on Values: Towards Consensus or Trouble," AMSE Working Papers 1909, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    6. Blanco, Iván, 2005. "The silence that precedes hypocrisy: a formal model of the spiral of silence theory," MPRA Paper 45452, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Vilone, Daniele & Carletti, Timoteo & Bagnoli, Franco & Guazzini, Andrea, 2016. "The Peace Mediator effect: Heterogeneous agents can foster consensus in continuous opinion models," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 462(C), pages 84-91.
    8. Diemo Urbig & Jan Lorenz & Heiko Herzberg, 2008. "Opinion Dynamics: the Effect of the Number of Peers Met at Once," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 11(2), pages 1-4.
    9. Francisco J. León-Medina & Jordi Tena-Sánchez & Francisco J. Miguel, 2020. "Fakers becoming believers: how opinion dynamics are shaped by preference falsification, impression management and coherence heuristics," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 385-412, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    opinion formation;

    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:rmm:journl:v:0:y:2009:i:8. 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: Friederike Pförtner (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hfbfide.html .

    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.