IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v20y2014i3d10.1007_s10588-013-9161-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opinion transmission in organizations: an agent-based modeling approach

Author

Listed:
  • Juliette Rouchier

    (CNRS)

  • Paola Tubaro

    (Business School, University of Greenwich)

  • Cécile Emery

    (London School of Economics and Political Science)

Abstract

This paper builds a theoretical framework to detect the conditions under which social influence enables persistence of a shared opinion among members of an organization over time, despite membership turnover. It develops agent-based simulations of opinion evolution in an advice network, whereby opinion is defined in the broad sense of shared understandings on a matter that is relevant for an organization’s activities, and on which members have some degree of discretion. We combine a micro-level model of social influence that builds on the “relative agreement” approach of Deffuant et al. (J. Artif. Soc. Simul. 5:4, 2002), and a macro-level structure of interactions that includes a flow of joiners and leavers and allows for criteria of advice tie formation derived from, and grounded in, the empirical literature on intra-organizational networks. We provide computational evidence that persistence of opinions over time is possible in an organization with joiners and leavers, a result that depends on circumstances defined by mode of network tie formation (in particular, criteria for selection of advisors), individual attributes of agents (openness of newcomers to influence, as part of their socialization process), and time-related factors (turnover rate, which regulates the flow of entry and exit in the organization, and establishes a form of endogenous hierarchy based on length of stay). We explore the combined effects of these factors and discuss their implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Juliette Rouchier & Paola Tubaro & Cécile Emery, 2014. "Opinion transmission in organizations: an agent-based modeling approach," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 252-277, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:20:y:2014:i:3:d:10.1007_s10588-013-9161-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-013-9161-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-013-9161-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10588-013-9161-2?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ugur, Mehmet & Sunderland, David, 2011. "Does economic governance matter?: Governance institutions and outcomes," Greenwich Papers in Political Economy 4759, University of Greenwich, Greenwich Political Economy Research Centre.
    2. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1711 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Krzysztof Malarz & Piotr Gronek & Krzysztof Kulakowski, 2011. "Zaller-Deffuant Model of Mass Opinion," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 14(1), pages 1-2.
    4. Juliette Rouchier & Emily Tanimura, 2012. "When overconfident agents slow down collective learning," Post-Print hal-00623966, HAL.
    5. J. Richard Harrison & Glenn R. Carroll, 2002. "The Dynamics of Cultural Influence Networks," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 5-30, May.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Emmanuel Lazega & Lise Mounier & Paola Tubaro, 2011. "Norms, Advice Networks and Joint Economic Governance: The Case of Conflicts Among Shareholders at the Commercial Court of Paris," Chapters, in: Mehmet Ugur & David Sunderland (ed.), Does Economic Governance Matter?, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. repec:dau:papers:123456789/10694 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Guillaume Deffuant & Frederic Amblard, 2003. "Simple is Beautiful? and Necessary," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 6(1), pages 1-6.
    11. Floriana Gargiulo & Alberto Mazzoni, 2008. "Can Extremism Guarantee Pluralism?," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 11(4), pages 1-9.
    12. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/7o52iohb7k6srk09nad8ob40p is not listed on IDEAS
    13. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    14. Mehmet Ugur & David Sunderland (ed.), 2011. "Does Economic Governance Matter?," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14356.
    15. Guillaume Deffuant, 2006. "Comparing Extremism Propagation Patterns in Continuous Opinion Models," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(3), pages 1-8.
    16. Santo Fortunato, 2004. "UNIVERSALITY OF THE THRESHOLD FOR COMPLETE CONSENSUS FOR THE OPINION DYNAMICS OF DEFFUANTet al," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(09), pages 1301-1307.
    17. Juliette Rouchier & Emily Tanimura, 2012. "When overconfident agents slow down collective learning," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00623966, HAL.
    18. Nicholas Athanassiou & Douglas Nigh, 1999. "The impact of U.S. company internationalization on top management team advice networks: a tacit knowledge perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 83-92, January.
    19. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/7o52iohb7k6srk09nad8ob40p is not listed on IDEAS
    20. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4590 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Dustin L. Arendt & Leslie M. Blaha, 2015. "Opinions, influence, and zealotry: a computational study on stubbornness," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 184-209, June.
    2. Pedro Lopez-Merino & Juliette Rouchier, 2021. "An agent-based model of (food) consumption: Accounting for the Intention-Behaviour-Gap on three dimensions of characteristics with limited knowledge," Post-Print hal-03618377, HAL.
    3. 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.
    4. Thomas Feliciani & Andreas Flache & Michael Mäs, 2021. "Persuasion without polarization? Modelling persuasive argument communication in teams with strong faultlines," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 61-92, March.

    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. Maciel, Marcelo V. & Martins, André C.R., 2020. "Ideologically motivated biases in a multiple issues opinion model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 553(C).
    3. Martins, André C.R., 2022. "Extremism definitions in opinion dynamics models," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 589(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Victorien Barbet & Noé Guiraud & Vincent Laperrière & Juliette Rouchier, 2019. "Haggling on Values: Towards Consensus or Trouble," AMSE Working Papers 1909, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    6. Guillaume Deffuant & Ilaria Bertazzi & Sylvie Huet, 2018. "The Dark Side Of Gossips: Hints From A Simple Opinion Dynamics Model," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-20, September.
    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. Floriana Gargiulo & Alberto Mazzoni, 2008. "Can Extremism Guarantee Pluralism?," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 11(4), pages 1-9.
    10. Pedraza, Lucía & Pinasco, Juan Pablo & Saintier, Nicolas & Balenzuela, Pablo, 2021. "An analytical formulation for multidimensional continuous opinion models," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Huang, Changwei & Dai, Qionglin & Han, Wenchen & Feng, Yuee & Cheng, Hongyan & Li, Haihong, 2018. "Effects of heterogeneous convergence rate on consensus in opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 499(C), pages 428-435.
    13. Huang, Changwei & Bian, Huanyu & Han, Wenchen, 2024. "Breaking the symmetry neutralizes the extremization under the repulsion and higher order interactions," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    14. 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.
    15. G'erard Weisbuch, 2015. "From anti-conformism to extremism," Papers 1503.04799, arXiv.org.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Agnieszka Kowalska-Styczeń & Krzysztof Malarz, 2020. "Noise induced unanimity and disorder in opinion formation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-22, July.
    20. 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.

    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:spr:comaot:v:20:y:2014:i:3:d:10.1007_s10588-013-9161-2. 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.