IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jas/jasssj/2022-146-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validating Argument-Based Opinion Dynamics with Survey Experiments

Author

Abstract

The empirical validation of models remains one of the most important challenges in opinion dynamics. In this contribution, we report on recent developments on combining data from a survey experiment with an argument-based computational model of opinion formation in which biased processing is the principle mechanism. We first review the development of argument-based models, and extend a model with confirmation bias by noise mimicking an external source of balanced information. We then study the behavior of this extended model to characterize the macroscopic opinion distributions that emerge from the process. A new method for the automated classification of model outcomes is presented. In the final part of the paper, we describe and apply a multi-level validation approach using the micro and the macro data gathered in the survey experiment. We revisit previous results on the micro-level calibration using data on argument-induced opinion change, and show that the extended model matches surveyed opinion distributions in a specific region in the parameter space. The estimated strength of biased processing given the macro data is highly compatible with those values that achieve high likelihood at the micro level. The model provides a solid bridge from the micro processes of individual attitude change to macro level opinion distributions.

Suggested Citation

  • Sven Banisch & Hawal Shamon, 2024. "Validating Argument-Based Opinion Dynamics with Survey Experiments," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 27(1), pages 1-17.
  • Handle: RePEc:jas:jasssj:2022-146-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jasss.org/27/1/17/17.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sven Banisch & Eckehard Olbrich, 2021. "An Argument Communication Model of Polarization and Ideological Alignment," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 24(1), pages 1-1.
    2. Edoardo Baccini & Zoé Christoff & Stephan Hartmann & Rineke Verbrugge, 2023. "The Wisdom of the Small Crowd: Myside Bias and Group Discussion," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 26(4), pages 1-7.
    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. Felix Kopecky, 2022. "Arguments as Drivers of Issue Polarisation in Debates Among Artificial Agents," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 25(1), pages 1-4.
    2. Teng Li & Andreas Flache & Wander Jager, 2025. "How culture can affect opinion dynamics: the case of vaccination," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-45, February.
    3. Patrick Mellacher, 2021. "Opinion Dynamics with Conflicting Interests," Papers 2111.09408, arXiv.org.
    4. Louise Dupuis de Tarlé & Matteo Michelini & AnneMarie Borg & Gabriella Pigozzi & Juliette Rouchier & Dunja Šešelja & Christian Straßer, 2024. "An Agent-Based Model of MySide Bias in Scientific Debates," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 27(3), pages 1-1.
    5. Deffuant, Guillaume & Keijzer, Marijn & Banisch, Sven, 2023. "Regular access to constantly renewed online content favors radicalization of opinions," IAST Working Papers 23-154, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).

    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:jas:jasssj:2022-146-3. 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: Francesco Renzini (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.