IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jftint/v13y2021i11p296-d684658.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community Formation as a Byproduct of a Recommendation System: A Simulation Model for Bubble Formation in Social Media

Author

Listed:
  • Franco Bagnoli

    (Department of Physics and Astronomy and CSDC, University of Florence, Via G. Sansone 1, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy
    INFN, sect. Florence, Via G. Sansone 1, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy)

  • Guido de Bonfioli Cavalcabo’

    (Department of Physics and Astronomy and CSDC, University of Florence, Via G. Sansone 1, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy)

  • Banedetto Casu

    (Department of Physics and Astronomy and CSDC, University of Florence, Via G. Sansone 1, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy)

  • Andrea Guazzini

    (Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures and Psychology and CSDC, University of Florence, Via Laura 48, 50121 Firenze, Italy)

Abstract

We investigate the problem of the formation of communities of users that selectively exchange messages among them in a simulated environment. This closed community can be seen as the prototype of the bubble effect, i.e., the isolation of individuals from other communities. We develop a computational model of a society, where each individual is represented as a simple neural network (a perceptron), under the influence of a recommendation system that honestly forward messages (posts) to other individuals that in the past appreciated previous messages from the sender, i.e., that showed a certain degree of affinity. This dynamical affinity database determines the interaction network. We start from a set of individuals with random preferences (factors), so that at the beginning, there is no community structure at all. We show that the simple effect of the recommendation system is not sufficient to induce the isolation of communities, even when the database of user–user affinity is based on a small sample of initial messages, subject to small-sampling fluctuations. On the contrary, when the simulated individuals evolve their internal factors accordingly with the received messages, communities can emerge. This emergence is stronger the slower the evolution of individuals, while immediate convergence favors to the breakdown of the system in smaller communities. In any case, the final communities are strongly dependent on the sequence of messages, since one can get different final communities starting from the same initial distribution of users’ factors, changing only the order of users emitting messages. In other words, the main outcome of our investigation is that the bubble formation depends on users’ evolution and is strongly dependent on early interactions.

Suggested Citation

  • Franco Bagnoli & Guido de Bonfioli Cavalcabo’ & Banedetto Casu & Andrea Guazzini, 2021. "Community Formation as a Byproduct of a Recommendation System: A Simulation Model for Bubble Formation in Social Media," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-11, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:296-:d:684658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/13/11/296/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/13/11/296/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron & Józef Sznajd, 2000. "Opinion Evolution In Closed Community," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(06), pages 1157-1165.
    2. Maia, H.P. & Ferreira, S.C. & Martins, M.L., 2021. "Adaptive network approach for emergence of societal bubbles," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 572(C).
    3. Ron Berman & Zsolt Katona, 2020. "Curation Algorithms and Filter Bubbles in Social Networks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 296-316, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Blattner, Marcel & Zhang, Yi-Cheng & Maslov, Sergei, 2007. "Exploring an opinion network for taste prediction: An empirical study," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 373(C), pages 753-758.
    6. Bagnoli, Franco & Berrones, Arturo & Franci, Fabio, 2004. "De gustibus disputandum (forecasting opinions by knowledge networks)," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 332(C), pages 509-518.
    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. Svetlana S. Bodrunova, 2022. "Editorial for the Special Issue “Selected Papers from the 9th Annual Conference ‘Comparative Media Studies in Today’s World’ (CMSTW’2021)”," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-3, November.

    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. 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.
    2. Tiwari, Mukesh & Yang, Xiguang & Sen, Surajit, 2021. "Modeling the nonlinear effects of opinion kinematics in elections: A simple Ising model with random field based study," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).
    3. Si, Xia-Meng & Wang, Wen-Dong & Ma, Yan, 2016. "Role of propagation thresholds in sentiment-based model of opinion evolution with information diffusion," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 451(C), pages 549-559.
    4. Karataieva, Tatiana & Koshmanenko, Volodymyr & Krawczyk, Małgorzata J. & Kułakowski, Krzysztof, 2019. "Mean field model of a game for power," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 525(C), pages 535-547.
    5. AskariSichani, Omid & Jalili, Mahdi, 2015. "Influence maximization of informed agents in social networks," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 254(C), pages 229-239.
    6. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2020. "A Survey on Nonstrategic Models of Opinion Dynamics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-29, December.
    7. Song, Xiao & Shi, Wen & Ma, Yaofei & Yang, Chen, 2015. "Impact of informal networks on opinion dynamics in hierarchically formal organization," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 436(C), pages 916-924.
    8. Quanbo Zha & Gang Kou & Hengjie Zhang & Haiming Liang & Xia Chen & Cong-Cong Li & Yucheng Dong, 2020. "Opinion dynamics in finance and business: a literature review and research opportunities," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 1-22, December.
    9. Benjamin Cabrera & Björn Ross & Daniel Röchert & Felix Brünker & Stefan Stieglitz, 2021. "The influence of community structure on opinion expression: an agent-based model," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(9), pages 1331-1355, November.
    10. Martins, André C.R. & Pereira, Carlos de B. & Vicente, Renato, 2009. "An opinion dynamics model for the diffusion of innovations," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 388(15), pages 3225-3232.
    11. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2006. "Truth and Cognitive Division of Labour: First Steps Towards a Computer Aided Social Epistemology," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(3), pages 1-10.
    12. Qian, Shen & Liu, Yijun & Galam, Serge, 2015. "Activeness as a key to counter democratic balance," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 432(C), pages 187-196.
    13. Melatagia Yonta, Paulin & Ndoundam, René, 2009. "Opinion dynamics using majority functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 223-244, March.
    14. Verma, Gunjan & Swami, Ananthram & Chan, Kevin, 2014. "The impact of competing zealots on opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 395(C), pages 310-331.
    15. Calvelli, Matheus & Crokidakis, Nuno & Penna, Thadeu J.P., 2019. "Phase transitions and universality in the Sznajd model with anticonformity," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 513(C), pages 518-523.
    16. Lucas Böttcher & Hans J Herrmann & Hans Gersbach, 2018. "Clout, activists and budget: The road to presidency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-11, March.
    17. Jalili, Mahdi, 2013. "Social power and opinion formation in complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(4), pages 959-966.
    18. Juliette Rouchier & Emily Tanimura, 2012. "When overconfident agents slow down collective learning," Post-Print hal-00623966, HAL.
    19. Han, Wenchen & Gao, Shun & Huang, Changwei & Yang, Junzhong, 2022. "Non-consensus states in circular opinion model with repulsive interaction," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 585(C).
    20. Le Pira, Michela & Inturri, Giuseppe & Ignaccolo, Matteo & Pluchino, Alessandro & Rapisarda, Andrea, 2017. "Finding shared decisions in stakeholder networks: An agent-based approach," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 466(C), pages 277-287.

    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:gam:jftint:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:296-:d:684658. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.