This paper reviews a sociophysics two-state model for opinion forming that has proven heuristic power. The dynamics are driven by repeated small-group discussions; within each group, a local majority rule is applied to update the opinions of agents. Iterating the dynamics leads towards one of two opposite attractors at which every agent shares the same opinion. The successful attractor is a function of the initial support with respect to a certain threshold, the value of which depends on the size distribution of the local update groups. While odd-sized groups yield a threshold at fifty percent, even-sized groups, which allow the inclusion of doubt in the case of an opinion tie, produce a threshold shift toward either one of the two attractors, giving rise to minority opinion spreading. In addition, agents can be heterogeneous in their cognitive nature, obeying different rules to update their opinion. While floater agents are open to changing their mind, contrarians chose to oppose whatever opinion was held by the majority of agents in their vicinity, and inflexibles never change their mind. Contrarians and inflexibles have drastic and counter-intuitive effects on the opinion dynamics. Beyond certain critical proportions, contrarians trigger an upside change of the dynamics, making it threshold-less with only one attractor at precisely 50/50 regardless of the initial conditions. Inflexibles produce the same threshold-less dynamics, except with an asymmetric single attractor that favors a specific opinion, even when they start with very low support. The results are used to shed new and unexpected light on controversial issues such as global warming.

Journal Information

Vol. 18. Issue 1.

Pages 2-11 (January - April 2013)

Vol. 18. Issue 1.

Pages 2-11 (January - April 2013)

DOI: 10.1016/S2340-1540(13)70002-1

Full text access

Modeling the Forming of Public Opinion: An approach from Sociophysics

Visits

...

Serge Galam

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Meudon Cedex, France

Article information

Abstract

Keywords:

Opinion dynamics

critical thresholds

minority spreading

attractors

Full text is only aviable in PDF

References

[Ausloos and Petroni, 2007]

M. Ausloos, F. Petroni.

Statistical dynamics of religions and adherents.

Europhysics Letters, 77 (2007), pp. 38002

[Behera and Schweitzer, 2003]

L. Behera, F. Schweitzer.

On Spatial Consensus Formation: Is the Sznajd Model Different from a Voter Model?.

International Journal of Modern Physics C, 14 (2003), pp. 1331-1354

[Borge-Holthoefer et al., 2012]

J. Borge-Holthoefer, S. Meloni, B. Gonçalves, Y. Moreno.

Emergence of Influential Spreaders in Modified Rumor Models.

Journal of Statistical Physics, 151 (2012), pp. 383-393

[Borghesi and Galam, 2006]

C. Borghesi, S. Galam.

Chaotic, staggered, and polarized dynamics in opinion forming: The contrarian effect.

Physical Review E, 73 (2006),

[Castellano et al., 2009]

C. Castellano, S. Fortunato, V. Loreto.

Statistical physics of social dynamics.

Reviews of Modern Physics, 81 (2009), pp. 591-646

[Chakrabarti et al., 2006]

Econophysics and Sociophysics: Trends and Perspectives,

[Contucci and Ghirlanda, 2007]

P. Contucci, S. Ghirlanda.

Modeling society with statistical mechanics: an application to cultural contact and immigration.

Quality & Quantity, 41 (2007), pp. 569-578

[Crokidakis and Anteneodo, 2012]

N. Crokidakis, C. Anteneodo.

Role of conviction in nonequilibrium models of opinion formation.

Physical Review E, 86 (2012),

[De la Lama et al., 2005]

M.S. De la Lama, J.M. López, H.S. Wio.

Spontaneous emergence of contrarian-like behaviour in an opinion spreading model.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 72 (2005), pp. 851-857

[Deffuant et al., 2000]

G. Deffuant, D. Neau, F. Amblard, G. Weisbuch.

Mixing beliefs among interacting agents.

Advances in Complex Systems, (2000),

[Ellero et al., 2013]

A. Ellero, G. Fasano, A. Sorato.

Stochastic model of agent interaction with opinion leaders.

Physical Review E, 87 (2013),

[Fortunato and Castellano, 2007]

S. Fortunato, C. Castellano.

Scaling and Universality in Proportional Elections.

Physical Review Letters, 99 (2007),

[Fortunato et al., 2013]

S. Fortunato, M. Macy, S. Redner.

Editorial.

Journal of Statistical Physics, 151 (2013), pp. 1-8

[Galam, 1986]

S. Galam.

Majority rule, hierarchical structures, and democratic totalitarianism: A statistical approach.

Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30 (1986), pp. 426-434

[Galam, 2000]

S. Galam.

Les reformes sont-elles impossibles?.

Le Monde, (2000), pp. 18-19

[Galam, 2002]

S. Galam.

Minority opinion spreading in random geometry.

The European Physical Journal B, 25 (2002), pp. 403-406

[Galam, 2003]

S. Galam.

Modelling rumors: the no plane Pentagon French hoax case.

Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 320 (2003), pp. 571-580

[Galam, 2004a]

S. Galam.

Sociophysics: a personal testimony.

Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 336 (2004), pp. 49-55

[Galam, 2004b]

S. Galam.

The dynamics of minority opinions in democratic debate.

Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 336 (2004), pp. 56-62

[Galam, 2004c]

S. Galam.

Contrarian deterministic effects on opinion dynamics: “the hung elections scenario”.

Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 333 (2004), pp. 453-460

[Galam, 2005a]

S. Galam.

Heterogeneous beliefs, segregation, and extremism in the making of public opinions.

Physical Review E, 71 (2005),

[Galam, 2005b]

S. Galam.

Local dynamics vs. social mechanisms: A unifying frame.

Europhysics Letters, 70 (2005), pp. 705-711

[Galam, 2005c]

S. Galam.

Les mathématiques s’ invitent dans le débat européen. Interview par P. Lehir.

Le Monde, (2005), pp. 23

[Galam, 2007]

S. Galam.

From 2000 Bush-Gore to 2006 Italian elections: voting at fifty-fifty and the contrarian effect.

Quality & Quantity, 41 (2007), pp. 579-589

[Galam, 2008a]

S. Galam.

Sociophysics: A Review of Galam Models.

International Journal of Modern Physics C, 19 (2008), pp. 409-440

[Galam, 2008b]

S. Galam.

Les scientifiques ont perdu le Nord. Réflexions sur le réchauffement climatique, Éditions Plons, Paris (Reflexions.).

Editions Plons, (2008),

[Galam, 2012]

S. Galam.

Sociophysics: a physicist's modeling of psycho-political phenomena.

Springer, (2012),

[Galam, 2013]

S. Galam.

The drastic outcomes from voting alliances in three-party bottom-up democratic voting (1990 $\rightarrow$ 2013).

Journal of Statistical Physics, 151 (2013), pp. 46-68

[Galam et al., 1998]

S. Galam, B. Chopard, A. Masselot, M. Droz.

Competing species dynamics: Qualitative advantage versus geography.

The European Physical Journal B, 4 (1998), pp. 529-531

[Galam et al., 1982]

S. Galam, Y. Gefen, Y. Shapir.

Sociophysics: A mean behaviour description of a strike.

The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 9 (1982), pp. 1-13

[Galam and Jacobs, 2007]

S. Galam, F. Jacobs.

The role of inflexible minorities in the breaking of democratic opinion dynamics.

Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 381 (2007), pp. 366-376

[Galam and Moscovici, 1991]

S. Galam, S. Moscovici.

Towards a theory of collective phenomena: Consensus and attitude changes in groups.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 21 (1991), pp. 49-74

[Gonzalez et al., 2004]

M.C. González, A.O. Sousa, H.J. Herrmann.

Opinion formation on a deterministic pseudo-fractal network.

International Journal of Modern Physics C, 15 (2004), pp. 45-57

[Hegselmann and Krause, 2002]

R. Hegselmann, U. Krause.

Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis and simulation.

Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5 (2002), pp. 1-33

[Kulakowski and Nawojczyk, 2008]

K. Kulakowski, M. Nawojczyk.

The Galam Model of Minority Opinion Spreading and the Marriage Gap.

International Journal of Modern Physics C, 19 (2008), pp. 611-615

[Lambiotte and Ausloos, 2007]

R. Lambiotte, M. Ausloos.

Coexistence of opposite opinions in a network with communities.

Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, (2007),

[Lambiotte et al., 2009]

Lambiotte, Renaud, J. Saramäki, V. Blondel.

Dynamics of latent voters.

Physical Review E, 79 (2009),

[Martins, 2008]

A. Martins.

Mobility and social network effects on extremist opinions.

Physical Review E, 78 (2008),

[Martins, 2008]

A.C.R. Martins.

Continuous opinions and discrete actions in opinion dynamics problems.

International Journal of Modern Physics C, 19 (2008), pp. 617-624

[Martins et al., 2009]

A.C.R. Martins, C. Pereira, B. de, R. Vicente.

An opinion dynamics model for the diffusion of innovations.

Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 388 (2009), pp. 3225-3232

[Mobilia and Redner, 2003]

M. Mobilia, S. Redner.

Majority versus minority dynamics: Phase transition in an interacting two-state spin system.

Physical Review E, 68 (2003),

[Mobilia and Mauro, 2013]

Mobilia, Mauro.

Commitment Versus Persuasion in the Three-Party Constrained Voter Model.

Journal of Statistical Physics, 151 (2013), pp. 69-91

[Nyczka and Sznajd-Weron, 2013]

P. Nyczka, K. Sznajd-Weron.

Anticonformity or Independence?—Insights from Statistical Physics.

Journal of Statistical Physics, 151 (2013), pp. 174-202

[Pajot and Galam, 2002]

S. Pajot, S. Galam.

Coexistence of Opposite Global Social Feelings: The Case of Percolation Driven Insecurity.

International Journal of Modern Physics C, 13 (2002), pp. 1375-1385

[Schneider and Hirtreiter, 2005]

J.J. Schneider, C. Hirtreiter.

The Impact of election results on the member numbers of the large parties in bavaria and germany.

International Journal of Modern Physics C, 16 (2005), pp. 1165-1215

[Sirbu et al., 2013]

A. Sîrbu, V. Loreto, V.D.P. Servedio, F. Tria.

Opinion Dynamics with Disagreement and Modulated Information.

Journal of Statistical Physics, 151 (2013), pp. 218-237

[Slanina and Lavicka, 2003]

F. Slanina, H. Lavicka.

Analytical results for the Sznajd model of opinion formation.

The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter, 35 (2003), pp. 279-288

[Solomon et al., 2000]

S. Solomon, G. Weisbuch, L. De Arcangelis, N. Jan, D. Stauffer.

Social percolation models.

Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 277 (2000), pp. 239-247

[Stauffer et al., 2006]

D. Stauffer, S. Moss de Oliveira, P. De Oliveira, J. Sa Martins.

Elsevier, (2006),

[Stauffer and Sa Martins, 2004]

D. Stauffer, J.S. Sá Martins.

Simulation of Galam's contrarian opinions on percolative lattices.

Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 334 (2004), pp. 558-565

[Stauffer and Dietrich, 2012]

Stauffer, Dietrich.

A Biased Review of Sociophysics.

Journal of Statistical Physics, 151 (2012), pp. 9-20

[Sznajd-Weron and Sznajd, 2000]

K. Sznajd-Weron, J. Sznajd.

Opinion Evolution in Closed Community.

International Journal of Modern Physics C, 11 (2000), pp. 1157-1165

[Tessone et al., 2004]

C.J. Tessone, R. Toral, P. Amengual, H.S. Wio, M. San Miguel.

Neighborhood models of minority opinion spreading.

The European Physical Journal B, 39 (2004), pp. 535-544

[Vicente et al., 2009]

R. Vicente, A.C.R. Martins, N. Caticha.

Opinion dynamics of learning agents: does seeking consensus lead to disagreement?.

Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, (2009),

[Wio et al., 2006]

H.S. Wio, M.S. De la Lama, J.M. López.

Contrarian-like behavior and system size stochastic resonance in an opinion spreading model.

Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 371 (2006), pp. 108-111

Copyright © 2013. Instituto Para o Desenvolvimento da Gestão Empresarial (INDEG/ISCTE)