IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v31y2025i2d10.1007_s10588-025-09396-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characterizing the roles of preference homophily and network structure on outcomes of consensus games

Author

Listed:
  • Pratyush Arya

    (Indian Institute of Technology)

  • Nisheeth Srivastava

    (Indian Institute of Technology)

Abstract

This paper presents results from in silico experiments trying to uncover the mechanisms by which people both succeed and fail to reach consensus in networked games, for network structures produced by a variety of generative mechanisms. We find that the primary cause for failure in such games is preferential selection of information sources. Agents forced to sample information from randomly selected fixed neighborhoods eventually converge to a consensus, while agents free to form their own neighborhoods and forming them on the basis of homophily frequently end up creating balkanized cliques. Small-world structure attenuates the drive towards consensus in fixed networks, but not in self-selecting networks. Preferentially attached networks show the highest convergence to consensus, thereby showing resilience to balkanization even in self-selecting networks. We investigate the reasons for such behavior by altering graph properties of generated networks. We conclude with a brief discussion of the implications of our findings for representing behavior in socio-cultural modeling.

Suggested Citation

  • Pratyush Arya & Nisheeth Srivastava, 2025. "Characterizing the roles of preference homophily and network structure on outcomes of consensus games," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 139-160, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:31:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s10588-025-09396-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-025-09396-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-025-09396-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10588-025-09396-3?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Zuiderveen Borgesius, Frederik J. & Trilling, Damian & Möller, Judith & Bodó, Balázs & de Vreese, Claes H. & Helberger, Natali, 2016. "Should we worry about filter bubbles?," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 5(1), pages 1-16.
    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. Theodora A. Maniou & Andreas Veglis, 2020. "Employing a Chatbot for News Dissemination during Crisis: Design, Implementation and Evaluation," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-14, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Taalaibekova, Akylai, 2019. "Opinion formation and targeting when persuaders have extreme and centrist opinions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 9-27.
    4. Shang, Lihui & Zhao, Mingming & Ai, Jun & Su, Zhan, 2021. "Opinion evolution in the Sznajd model on interdependent chains," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 565(C).
    5. Guohui Song & Yongbin Wang, 2021. "Mainstream Value Information Push Strategy on Chinese Aggregation News Platform: Evolution, Modelling and Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-17, October.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. George Butler & Juliette Rouchier & Gabriella Pigozzi, 2021. "Corrigendum to “Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Makingâ€," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2021, pages 1-1, February.
    10. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    11. Leonie Geyer & Patrick Mellacher, 2024. "Simulating Party Competition in Dynamic Voter Distributions," Graz Economics Papers 2024-19, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    12. Huang, Changwei & Hou, Yongzhao & Han, Wenchen, 2023. "Coevolution of consensus and cooperation in evolutionary Hegselmann–Krause dilemma with the cooperation cost," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    13. María Cecilia Gimenez & Luis Reinaudi & Ana Pamela Paz-García & Paulo Marcelo Centres & Antonio José Ramirez-Pastor, 2021. "Opinion evolution in the presence of constant propaganda: homogeneous and localized cases," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 94(1), pages 1-11, January.
    14. Michel Grabisch & Antoine Mandel & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2023. "On the Design of Public Debate in Social Networks," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 71(2), pages 626-648, March.
    15. Kułakowski, Krzysztof, 2009. "Opinion polarization in the Receipt–Accept–Sample model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 388(4), pages 469-476.
    16. 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.
    17. Schweitzer, Frank, 2021. "Social percolation revisited: From 2d lattices to adaptive networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 570(C).
    18. Toth, Gabor & Galam, Serge, 2022. "Deviations from the majority: A local flip model," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Yao Li & Wenhao Lin & Yucheng Dong & Cong-Cong Li & Francisco Herrera, 2024. "Consensus Reaching with Dynamic Trust Relationships and Cost-Learning in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 1269-1300, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:spr:comaot:v:31:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s10588-025-09396-3. 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.

    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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.