IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/apmaco/v444y2023ics009630032200858x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influence in social networks with stubborn agents: From competition to bargaining

Author

Listed:
  • Kareeva, Yulia
  • Sedakov, Artem
  • Zhen, Mengke

Abstract

The literature on game-theoretic models of opinion dynamics in social networks mainly focuses on the Nash equilibrium, which reflects a competitive situation between influencing agents called players. In some real-world situations, however, players negotiate over a game; thus, a different type of solution needs to be considered to account for possible outcomes. In this paper, we examine an opinion dynamics game based on the Friedkin–Johnsen model for which we characterize the Pareto frontier, including the Nash bargaining solution. Next, we analyze this solution when there are changes in the susceptibility of noninfluencing agents with respect to their initial opinions. We also quantify how the Nash equilibrium outcome differs from the outcome prescribed by the Nash bargaining solution.

Suggested Citation

  • Kareeva, Yulia & Sedakov, Artem & Zhen, Mengke, 2023. "Influence in social networks with stubborn agents: From competition to bargaining," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 444(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:apmaco:v:444:y:2023:i:c:s009630032200858x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.amc.2022.127790
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009630032200858X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.amc.2022.127790?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alain Haurie & Jacek B Krawczyk & Georges Zaccour, 2012. "Games and Dynamic Games," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 8442, February.
    2. Vladimir Mazalov & Elena Parilina, 2020. "The Euler-Equation Approach in Average-Oriented Opinion Dynamics," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-16, March.
    3. Wang, Shaoli & Rong, Libin & Wu, Jianhong, 2016. "Bistability and multistability in opinion dynamics models," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 388-395.
    4. Zheng, Xi & Lu, Xi & Chan, Felix T.S. & Deng, Yong & Wang, Zhen, 2015. "Bargaining models in opinion dynamics," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 251(C), pages 162-168.
    5. 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.
    6. Daron Acemoglu & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2011. "Opinion Dynamics and Learning in Social Networks," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 3-49, March.
    7. Tamer Başar & Quanyan Zhu, 2011. "Prices of Anarchy, Information, and Cooperation in Differential Games," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 50-73, March.
    8. Bindel, David & Kleinberg, Jon & Oren, Sigal, 2015. "How bad is forming your own opinion?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 248-265.
    9. 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).
    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. 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.
    2. Muhammad Umar B. Niazi & A. Bülent Özgüler, 2021. "A Differential Game Model of Opinion Dynamics: Accord and Discord as Nash Equilibria," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 137-160, March.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Charcon, D.Y. & Monteiro, L.H.A., 2020. "A multi-agent system to predict the outcome of a two-round election," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 386(C).
    8. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2020. "A Survey on Nonstrategic Models of Opinion Dynamics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-29, December.
    9. Tushar Vaidya & Thiparat Chotibut & Georgios Piliouras, 2019. "Broken Detailed Balance and Non-Equilibrium Dynamics in Noisy Social Learning Models," Papers 1906.11481, arXiv.org, revised May 2020.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Eger, Steffen, 2016. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under out-group discrimination," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 97-107.
    13. Shang, Cui & Zhang, Runtong & Zhu, Xiaomin, 2023. "The influence of social embedding on belief system and its application in online public opinion guidance," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 623(C).
    14. Phillip Monin & Richard Bookstaber, 2017. "Information Flows, the Accuracy of Opinions, and Crashes in a Dynamic Network," Staff Discussion Papers 17-01, Office of Financial Research, US Department of the Treasury.
    15. Patrick Mellacher, 2021. "Opinion Dynamics with Conflicting Interests," Papers 2111.09408, arXiv.org.
    16. Jan Hk{a}z{l}a & Yan Jin & Elchanan Mossel & Govind Ramnarayan, 2019. "A Geometric Model of Opinion Polarization," Papers 1910.05274, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    17. Liu, Qipeng & Wang, Xiaofan, 2013. "Social learning with bounded confidence and heterogeneous agents," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(10), pages 2368-2374.
    18. Fernandes, Marcos R., 2023. "Confirmation bias in social networks," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 59-76.
    19. Christian Ganser & Marc Keuschnigg, 2018. "Social Influence Strengthens Crowd Wisdom Under Voting," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-23, September.
    20. Isabel Melguizo, 2019. "Homophily and the Persistence of Disagreement," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(619), pages 1400-1424.

    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:eee:apmaco:v:444:y:2023:i:c:s009630032200858x. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/applied-mathematics-and-computation .

    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.