IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joptap/v170y2016i1d10.1007_s10957-016-0874-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opinion Dynamics and Stubbornness Via Multi-Population Mean-Field Games

Author

Listed:
  • Dario Bauso

    (University of Sheffield
    Università di Palermo)

  • Raffaele Pesenti

    (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia)

  • Marco Tolotti

    (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia)

Abstract

This paper studies opinion dynamics for a set of heterogeneous populations of individuals pursuing two conflicting goals: to seek consensus and to be coherent with their initial opinions. The multi-population game under investigation is characterized by (i) rational agents who behave strategically, (ii) heterogeneous populations, and (iii) opinions evolving in response to local interactions. The main contribution of this paper is to encompass all of these aspects under the unified framework of mean-field game theory. We show that, assuming initial Gaussian density functions and affine control policies, the Fokker–Planck–Kolmogorov equation preserves Gaussianity over time. This fact is then used to explicitly derive expressions for the optimal control strategies when the players are myopic. We then explore consensus formation depending on the stubbornness of the involved populations: We identify conditions that lead to some elementary patterns, such as consensus, polarization, or plurality of opinions. Finally, under the baseline example of the presence of a stubborn population and a most gregarious one, we study the behavior of the model with a finite number of players, describing the dynamics of the average opinion, which is now a stochastic process. We also provide numerical simulations to show how the parameters impact the equilibrium formation.

Suggested Citation

  • Dario Bauso & Raffaele Pesenti & Marco Tolotti, 2016. "Opinion Dynamics and Stubbornness Via Multi-Population Mean-Field Games," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 170(1), pages 266-293, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joptap:v:170:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s10957-016-0874-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10957-016-0874-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10957-016-0874-5
    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/s10957-016-0874-5?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. William A. Brock & Steven N. Durlauf, 2001. "Discrete Choice with Social Interactions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(2), pages 235-260.
    2. Hamidou Tembine & Quanyan Zhu & Tamer Basar, 2011. "Risk-sensitive mean field stochastic differential games," Post-Print hal-00643547, HAL.
    3. 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.
    4. Daron Acemoglu & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2011. "Opinion Dynamics and Learning in Social Networks," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 3-49, March.
    5. A. Pluchino & V. Latora & A. Rapisarda, 2006. "Compromise and synchronization in opinion dynamics," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 169-176, March.
    6. Sachin Adlakha & Ramesh Johari, 2013. "Mean Field Equilibrium in Dynamic Games with Strategic Complementarities," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(4), pages 971-989, August.
    7. Olivier Guéant & Pierre Louis Lions & Jean-Michel Lasry, 2011. "Mean Field Games and Applications," Post-Print hal-01393103, HAL.
    8. Abhijit V. Banerjee, 1992. "A Simple Model of Herd Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(3), pages 797-817.
    9. Diogo Gomes & João Saúde, 2014. "Mean Field Games Models—A Brief Survey," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 110-154, June.
    10. Daron Acemoğlu & Giacomo Como & Fabio Fagnani & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2013. "Opinion Fluctuations and Disagreement in Social Networks," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 1-27, February.
    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. Paolo Dai Pra & Elena Sartori & Marco Tolotti, 2023. "Polarization and Coherence in Mean Field Games Driven by Private and Social Utility," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 198(1), pages 49-85, July.
    2. Li, Tingyu & Zhu, Hengmin, 2020. "Effect of the media on the opinion dynamics in online social networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 551(C).
    3. Paolo Dai Pra & Elena Sartori & Marco Tolotti, 2019. "Climb on the Bandwagon: Consensus and Periodicity in a Lifetime Utility Model with Strategic Interactions," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 1061-1075, December.

    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. Fabio Bagagiolo & Dario Bauso & Raffaele Pesenti, 2016. "Mean-Field Game Modeling the Bandwagon Effect with Activation Costs," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 456-476, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Azzimonti, Marina & Fernandes, Marcos, 2023. "Social media networks, fake news, and polarization," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    4. Michel Grabisch & Antoine Mandel & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Emily Tanimura, 2015. "Strategic influence in social networks," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01158168, HAL.
    5. Catherine A. Glass & David H. Glass, 2021. "Social Influence of Competing Groups and Leaders in Opinion Dynamics," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 58(3), pages 799-823, October.
    6. Goldbaum David, 2019. "Conformity and Influence," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 1-29, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Isabel Melguizo, 2019. "Homophily and the Persistence of Disagreement," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(619), pages 1400-1424.
    9. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2020. "A Survey on Nonstrategic Models of Opinion Dynamics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-29, December.
    10. Battiston, Pietro & Stanca, Luca, 2015. "Boundedly rational opinion dynamics in social networks: Does indegree matter?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 400-421.
    11. Fang, Aili, 2021. "The influence of communication structure on opinion dynamics in social networks with multiple true states," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 406(C).
    12. Eger, Steffen, 2016. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under out-group discrimination," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 97-107.
    13. Akylai Taalaibekova, 2018. "Opinion formation in social networks," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 28(2), pages 85-108.
    14. Patrick Mellacher, 2021. "Opinion Dynamics with Conflicting Interests," Papers 2111.09408, arXiv.org.
    15. Matjaž Steinbacher & Mitja Steinbacher, 2019. "Opinion Formation with Imperfect Agents as an Evolutionary Process," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 53(2), pages 479-505, February.
    16. Régis Chenavaz & Corina Paraschiv & Gabriel Turinici, 2021. "Dynamic Pricing of New Products in Competitive Markets: A Mean-Field Game Approach," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 463-490, September.
    17. Shyam Gouri Suresh & Scott Jeffrey, 2017. "The Consequences of Social Pressures on Partisan Opinion Dynamics," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(2), pages 242-259, March.
    18. Ding, Huihui & Pivato, Marcus, 2021. "Deliberation and epistemic democracy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 138-167.
    19. Fernandes, Marcos R., 2023. "Confirmation bias in social networks," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 59-76.
    20. Michael Hatcher & Tim Hellmann, 2024. "Communication, networks and asset price dynamics: a survey," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 19(1), pages 1-58, January.

    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:joptap:v:170:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s10957-016-0874-5. 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.