IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/compec/v25y2005i4p381-405.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opinion Dynamics Driven by Various Ways of Averaging

Author

Listed:
  • Rainer Hegselmann
  • Ulrich Krause

Abstract

The paper treats opinion dynamics under bounded confidence when agents employ, beside an arithmetic mean, means like a geometric mean, a power mean or a random mean in aggregating opinions. The different kinds of collective dynamics resulting from these various ways of averaging are studied and compared by simulations. Particular attention is given to the random mean which is a new concept introduced in this paper. All those concrete means are just particular cases of a partial abstract mean, which also is a new concept. This comprehensive concept of averaging opinions is investigated also analytically and it is shown in particular, that the dynamics driven by it always stabilizes in a certain pattern of opinions. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Suggested Citation

  • Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2005. "Opinion Dynamics Driven by Various Ways of Averaging," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 25(4), pages 381-405, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:compec:v:25:y:2005:i:4:p:381-405
    DOI: 10.1007/s10614-005-6296-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10614-005-6296-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10614-005-6296-3?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. 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.
    2. Guillaume Deffuant & Frederic Amblard & Gérard Weisbuch, 2002. "How Can Extremism Prevail? a Study Based on the Relative Agreement Interaction Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(4), pages 1-1.
    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. Desmarchelier, Benoît & Djellal, Faridah & Gallouj, Faïz, 2013. "Environmental policies and eco-innovations by service firms: An agent-based model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(7), pages 1395-1408.
    2. 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.
    3. Pietro Battiston & Luca Stanca, 2014. "Boundedly Rational Opinion Dynamics in Directed Social Networks: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 267, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Jan 2014.

    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. George Butler & Gabriella Pigozzi & Juliette Rouchier, 2019. "Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-31, August.
    2. María Cecilia Gimenez & Luis Reinaudi & Ana Pamela Paz-García & Paulo Marcelo Centres & Antonio José Ramirez-Pastor, 2021. "Opinion evolution in the presence of constant propaganda: homogeneous and localized cases," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 94(1), pages 1-11, January.
    3. 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).
    4. Song, Xiao & Shi, Wen & Tan, Gary & Ma, Yaofei, 2015. "Multi-level tolerance opinion dynamics in military command and control networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 437(C), pages 322-332.
    5. Song, Xiao & Zhang, Shaoyun & Qian, Lidong, 2013. "Opinion dynamics in networked command and control organizations," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(20), pages 5206-5217.
    6. Wander Jager & Frédéric Amblard, 2005. "Uniformity, Bipolarization and Pluriformity Captured as Generic Stylized Behavior with an Agent-Based Simulation Model of Attitude Change," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 295-303, January.
    7. Gabbay, Michael, 2007. "The effects of nonlinear interactions and network structure in small group opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 378(1), pages 118-126.
    8. AskariSichani, Omid & Jalili, Mahdi, 2015. "Influence maximization of informed agents in social networks," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 254(C), pages 229-239.
    9. Sylvie Huet & Jean-Denis Mathias, 2018. "Few Self-Involved Agents Among Bounded Confidence Agents Can Change Norms," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-27, September.
    10. Robinson, Scott A. & Rai, Varun, 2015. "Determinants of spatio-temporal patterns of energy technology adoption: An agent-based modeling approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 273-284.
    11. Kurmyshev, Evguenii & Juárez, Héctor A. & González-Silva, Ricardo A., 2011. "Dynamics of bounded confidence opinion in heterogeneous social networks: Concord against partial antagonism," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 390(16), pages 2945-2955.
    12. 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.
    13. Si, Xia-Meng & Liu, Yun & Xiong, Fei & Zhang, Yan-Chao & Ding, Fei & Cheng, Hui, 2010. "Effects of selective attention on continuous opinions and discrete decisions," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 389(18), pages 3711-3719.
    14. Gary Mckeown & Noel Sheehy, 2006. "Mass Media and Polarisation Processes in the Bounded Confidence Model of Opinion Dynamics," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11.
    15. Shane T. Mueller & Yin-Yin Sarah Tan, 2018. "Cognitive perspectives on opinion dynamics: the role of knowledge in consensus formation, opinion divergence, and group polarization," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 15-48, January.
    16. Weimer, Christopher W. & Miller, J.O. & Hill, Raymond R. & Hodson, Douglas D., 2022. "An opinion dynamics model of meta-contrast with continuous social influence forces," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 589(C).
    17. Evangelos Ioannidis & Nikos Varsakelis & Ioannis Antoniou, 2020. "Promoters versus Adversaries of Change: Agent-Based Modeling of Organizational Conflict in Co-Evolving Networks," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-25, December.
    18. Pérez-Martínez, H. & Bauzá Mingueza, F. & Soriano-Paños, D. & Gómez-Gardeñes, J. & Floría, L.M., 2023. "Polarized opinion states in static networks driven by limited information horizons," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 175(P1).
    19. Biondo, A.E. & Brosio, G. & Pluchino, A. & Zanola, R., 2022. "Authoritarianism vs. democracy: Simulating responses to disease outbreaks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 594(C).
    20. Matjaž Steinbacher & Mitja Steinbacher, 2019. "Opinion Formation with Imperfect Agents as an Evolutionary Process," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 53(2), pages 479-505, February.

    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:kap:compec:v:25:y:2005:i:4:p:381-405. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.