IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/dyngam/v11y2021i1d10.1007_s13235-020-00350-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Differential Game Model of Opinion Dynamics: Accord and Discord as Nash Equilibria

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Umar B. Niazi

    (Bilkent University
    Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Inria, Grenoble INP, GIPSA-Lab)

  • A. Bülent Özgüler

    (Bilkent University)

Abstract

This paper presents a noncooperative differential (dynamic) game model of opinion dynamics with open-loop information structure. In this game, the agents’ motives are shaped by their expectations of the nature of others’ opinions as well as how susceptible they are to get influenced by others, how stubborn they are, and how quick they are willing to change their opinions on a set of issues in a prescribed time interval. These motives are independently formed by all agents. The existence of a Nash equilibrium in the network means that a collective behavior emerges out of local interaction rules and these individual motives. We prove that a unique Nash equilibrium may exist in the game under quite different circumstances. It may exist not only if there is a harmony of perceptions among the agents of the network, but also when agents have different views about the correlation among issues. The first leads to an accord in the network usually expressed as a partial consensus, and the second to a discord in the form of oscillating opinions. In the case of an accord, the harmony in the network may be in the form of similarity in pairwise conceptions about the issues but may also be an agreement on the status of a “leader” in the network. A Nash equilibrium may fail to exist only if the network is in a state of discord.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Umar B. Niazi & A. Bülent Özgüler, 2021. "A Differential Game Model of Opinion Dynamics: Accord and Discord as Nash Equilibria," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 137-160, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:dyngam:v:11:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s13235-020-00350-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s13235-020-00350-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13235-020-00350-3
    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/s13235-020-00350-3?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. Jan Lorenz, 2007. "Continuous Opinion Dynamics Under Bounded Confidence: A Survey," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1819-1838.
    2. 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.
    3. Bikhchandani, Sushil & Hirshleifer, David & Welch, Ivo, 1992. "A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change in Informational Cascades," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(5), pages 992-1026, October.
    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. Guillaume Deffuant & David Neau & Frederic Amblard & Gérard Weisbuch, 2000. "Mixing beliefs among interacting agents," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(01n04), pages 87-98.
    6. Daron Acemoglu & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2011. "Opinion Dynamics and Learning in Social Networks," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 3-49, March.
    7. Robert Huckfeldt, 2007. "Unanimity, Discord, and the Communication of Public Opinion," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 978-995, October.
    8. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401, April.
    9. Bindel, David & Kleinberg, Jon & Oren, Sigal, 2015. "How bad is forming your own opinion?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 248-265.
    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. 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.
    2. Christian Ganser & Marc Keuschnigg, 2018. "Social Influence Strengthens Crowd Wisdom Under Voting," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-23, September.
    3. Mehrdad Agha Mohammad Ali Kermani & Reza Ghesmati & Masoud Jalayer, 2018. "Opinion-Aware Influence Maximization: How To Maximize A Favorite Opinion In A Social Network?," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-27, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Mitja Steinbacher & Matjaž Steinbacher & Clemens Knoppe, 2024. "Opinion Dynamics with Preference Matching: How the Desire to Meet Facilitates Opinion Exchange," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 64(2), pages 735-768, August.
    6. Glass, Catherine A. & Glass, David H., 2021. "Opinion dynamics of social learning with a conflicting source," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    7. Vaidya, Tushar & Chotibut, Thiparat & Piliouras, Georgios, 2021. "Broken detailed balance and non-equilibrium dynamics in noisy social learning models," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 570(C).
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. G Jordan Maclay & Moody Ahmad, 2021. "An agent based force vector model of social influence that predicts strong polarization in a connected world," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-42, November.
    13. Kareeva, Yulia & Sedakov, Artem & Zhen, Mengke, 2023. "Influence in social networks with stubborn agents: From competition to bargaining," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 444(C).
    14. Antonio Parravano & Ascensión Andina-Díaz & Miguel A Meléndez-Jiménez, 2016. "Bounded Confidence under Preferential Flip: A Coupled Dynamics of Structural Balance and Opinions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-23, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Azzimonti, Marina & Fernandes, Marcos, 2023. "Social media networks, fake news, and polarization," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    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. Li, Mingwu & Dankowicz, Harry, 2019. "Impact of temporal network structures on the speed of consensus formation in opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 523(C), pages 1355-1370.
    20. Michel Grabisch & Antoine Mandel & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Emily Tanimura, 2015. "Strategic influence in social networks," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01158168, HAL.

    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:dyngam:v:11:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s13235-020-00350-3. 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: 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.