IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/chsofr/v167y2023ics0960077922012541.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disagreement and fragmentation in growing groups

Author

Listed:
  • Meng, Fanyuan
  • Zhu, Jiadong
  • Yao, Yuheng
  • Fenoaltea, Enrico Maria
  • Xie, Yubo
  • Yang, Pingle
  • Liu, Run-Ran
  • Zhang, Jianlin

Abstract

The arise of disagreement is an emergent phenomenon that can be observed within a growing social group and, beyond a certain threshold, can lead to group fragmentation. To better understand how disagreement emerges, we introduce an analytically tractable model of group formation where individuals have multidimensional binary opinions and the group grows through a noisy homophily principle, i.e., like-minded individuals attract each other with exceptions occurring with some small probability. Assuming that the level of disagreement is correlated with the number of different opinions coexisting within the group, we find analytically and numerically that in growing groups disagreement emerges spontaneously regardless of how small the noise in the system is. Moreover, for groups of infinite size, fragmentation is inevitable. We also show that the model outcomes are robust under different group growth mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Meng, Fanyuan & Zhu, Jiadong & Yao, Yuheng & Fenoaltea, Enrico Maria & Xie, Yubo & Yang, Pingle & Liu, Run-Ran & Zhang, Jianlin, 2023. "Disagreement and fragmentation in growing groups," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:chsofr:v:167:y:2023:i:c:s0960077922012541
    DOI: 10.1016/j.chaos.2022.113075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960077922012541
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.chaos.2022.113075?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. Fenoaltea, Enrico Maria & Baybusinov, Izat B. & Na, Xu & Zhang, Yi-Cheng, 2022. "A local interaction dynamic for the matching problem," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 604(C).
    2. Daron Acemoglu & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2011. "Opinion Dynamics and Learning in Social Networks," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 3-49, March.
    3. Jan Delhey, 2007. "Do Enlargements Make the European Union Less Cohesive? An Analysis of Trust between EU Nationalities," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(2), pages 253-279, June.
    4. Fragkiskos Papadopoulos & Maksim Kitsak & M. Ángeles Serrano & Marián Boguñá & Dmitri Krioukov, 2012. "Popularity versus similarity in growing networks," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7417), pages 537-540, September.
    5. Gergely Palla & Albert-László Barabási & Tamás Vicsek, 2007. "Quantifying social group evolution," Nature, Nature, vol. 446(7136), pages 664-667, April.
    6. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:45:y:2007:i::p:253-279 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Lipiecki, Arkadiusz & Sznajd-Weron, Katarzyna, 2022. "Polarization in the three-state q-voter model with anticonformity and bounded confidence," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 165(P1).
    8. Enrico Maria Fenoaltea & Izat B. Baybusinov & Jianyang Zhao & Lei Zhou & Yi-Cheng Zhang, 2021. "The Stable Marriage Problem: an Interdisciplinary Review from the Physicist's Perspective," Papers 2103.11458, arXiv.org.
    9. Tuan Minh Pham & Jan Korbel & Rudolf Hanel & Stefan Thurner, 2022. "Empirical social triad statistics can be explained with dyadic homophylic interactions," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119(6), pages 2121103119-, February.
    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. Gao, Fujuan & Fenoaltea, Enrico Maria & Zhang, Yi-Cheng, 2023. "Market failure in a new model of platform design with partially informed consumers," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 619(C).
    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. Jascha-Alexander Koch & Michael Siering, 2019. "The recipe of successful crowdfunding campaigns," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(4), pages 661-679, December.
    4. Crès, Hervé & Tvede, Mich, 2022. "Aggregation of opinions in networks of individuals and collectives," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Chen, Ling-Jiao & Zhang, Zi-Ke & Liu, Jin-Hu & Gao, Jian & Zhou, Tao, 2017. "A vertex similarity index for better personalized recommendation," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 466(C), pages 607-615.
    7. Davide Crapis & Bar Ifrach & Costis Maglaras & Marco Scarsini, 2017. "Monopoly Pricing in the Presence of Social Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3586-3608, November.
    8. Leonardo D'Amico & Guido Tabellini, 2022. "Disengaging from Reality - Online Behavior and Unpleasant Political News," CESifo Working Paper Series 9696, CESifo.
    9. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    10. Michel Grabisch & Fen Li, 2020. "Anti-conformism in the Threshold Model of Collective Behavior," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 444-477, June.
    11. Walid Ben-Ameur & Adam Ouorou & Guanglei Wang & Mateusz Żotkiewicz, 2018. "Multipolar robust optimization," EURO Journal on Computational Optimization, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 6(4), pages 395-434, December.
    12. Wilhelm, Thomas & Hollunder, Jens, 2007. "Information theoretic description of networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 385(1), pages 385-396.
    13. Tabasso, Nicole, 2019. "Diffusion of multiple information: On information resilience and the power of segregation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 219-240.
    14. Antonio Jiménez-Martínez, 2015. "A model of belief influence in large social networks," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 59(1), pages 21-59, May.
    15. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2016. "Determining influential models," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01318081, HAL.
    16. 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.
    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. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2020. "A Survey on Nonstrategic Models of Opinion Dynamics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-29, December.
    19. Bruno Arpino & Anastassia V. Obydenkova, 2020. "Democracy and Political Trust Before and After the Great Recession 2008: The European Union and the United Nations," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 395-415, April.
    20. John Barrdear, 2014. "Peering into the mist: social learning over an opaque observation network," Discussion Papers 1409, Centre for Macroeconomics (CFM).

    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:chsofr:v:167:y:2023:i:c:s0960077922012541. 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: Thayer, Thomas R. (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/chaos-solitons-and-fractals .

    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.