IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jcsosc/v8y2025i1d10.1007_s42001-024-00347-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How culture can affect opinion dynamics: the case of vaccination

Author

Listed:
  • Teng Li

    (University of Groningen
    Huazhong Agricultural University)

  • Andreas Flache

    (University of Groningen)

  • Wander Jager

    (University of Groningen)

Abstract

Culture plays a pivotal role in shaping collective level processes, with implications for public opinion on issues such as COVID-19 vaccination. Drawing on Hofstede's cultural dimension theory, we theoretically examine the influence of two key dimensions of culture, individualism/collectivism and power distance, on the opinion formation of individuals within a dynamic and evolving context. While former models suggest that collectivism promotes opinion consensus, our findings reveal a more complex relationship, particularly in scenarios where centralization or decentralization of a society is considered. By conducting multiple simulation experiments through an agent-based model, we find that collectivism can contribute to opinion consensus in a simple scenario in which only social norms work without any impact from authorities. However, a collectivist society also has the potential to experience high opinion polarization in the presence of greater decentralization among authorities, particularly in settings of high power distance. Simulation results further demonstrate that disagreement between authorities is more likely to result in opinion polarization in individualist cultures compared to collectivist cultures.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jcsosc:v:8:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s42001-024-00347-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s42001-024-00347-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s42001-024-00347-7
    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/s42001-024-00347-7?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. Esteban, Joan & Ray, Debraj, 1994. "On the Measurement of Polarization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(4), pages 819-851, July.
    2. Cornelia Betsch & Robert Böhm & Lars Korn & Cindy Holtmann, 2017. "On the benefits of explaining herd immunity in vaccine advocacy," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(3), pages 1-6, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Cai, Yongshun, 2008. "Power Structure and Regime Resilience: Contentious Politics in China," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(3), pages 411-432, July.
    5. Loïs Vanhée & Frank Dignum, 2018. "Explaining the Emerging Influence of Culture, from Individual Influences to Collective Phenomena," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 21(4), pages 1-11.
    6. Teng Li & Wander Jager, 2023. "How Availability Heuristic, Confirmation Bias and Fear May Drive Societal Polarisation: An Opinion Dynamics Simulation of the Case of COVID-19 Vaccination," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 26(4), pages 1-2.
    7. Javier Bernacer & Javier García-Manglano & Eduardo Camina & Francisco Güell, 2021. "Polarization of beliefs as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Spain," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-22, July.
    8. Gert Jan Hofstede & Catholijn M. Jonker & Tim Verwaart, 2012. "Cultural Differentiation of Negotiating Agents," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 79-98, January.
    9. Peter Duggins, 2017. "A Psychologically-Motivated Model of Opinion Change with Applications to American Politics," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(1), pages 1-13.
    10. Gianluca Manzo & Arnout van de Rijt, 2020. "Halting SARS-CoV-2 by Targeting High-Contact Individuals," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 23(4), pages 1-10.
    11. Shavitt, Sharon & Barnes, Aaron J., 2020. "Culture and the Consumer Journey," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 40-54.
    12. Kelsey E. Gonzalez & Rina James & Eric T. Bjorklund & Terrence D. Hill, 2021. "Conservatism and infrequent mask usage: A study of US counties during the novel coronavirus (COVID‐19) pandemic," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2368-2382, September.
    13. Kurt Kreulen & Bart de Bruin & Amineh Ghorbani & René Mellema & Christian Kammler & Lois Vanhée & Virginia Dignum & Frank Dignum, 2022. "How Culture Influences the Management of a Pandemic: A Simulation of the COVID-19 Crisis," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 25(3), pages 1-6.
    14. Sylvie Huet & Guillaume Deffuant, 2010. "Openness Leads To Opinion Stability And Narrowness To Volatility," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(03), pages 405-423.
    15. Shuguang Suo & Yu Chen, 2008. "The Dynamics of Public Opinion in Complex Networks," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 11(4), pages 1-2.
    16. 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.
    17. Andreas Flache & Michael Mäs & Thomas Feliciani & Edmund Chattoe-Brown & Guillaume Deffuant & Sylvie Huet & Jan Lorenz, 2017. "Models of Social Influence: Towards the Next Frontiers," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(4), pages 1-2.
    18. Moldovan, Sarit & Muller, Eitan & Richter, Yossi & Yom-Tov, Elad, 2017. "Opinion leadership in small groups," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 536-552.
    19. Dietmar Heinke & Gregory Carslaw & Julie Christian, 2013. "An Agent-Based Simulation of Destigmatization (DSIM): Introducing a Contact Theory and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Approach," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 16(4), pages 1-10.
    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. Tanzhe Tang & Amineh Ghorbani & Flaminio Squazzoni & Caspar G. Chorus, 2022. "Together alone: a group-based polarization measurement," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(5), pages 3587-3619, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Andreas Flache, 2018. "About Renegades And Outgroup Haters: Modeling The Link Between Social Influence And Intergroup Attitudes," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-32, September.
    6. Francisco J. León-Medina & Jordi Tena-Sánchez & Francisco J. Miguel, 2020. "Fakers becoming believers: how opinion dynamics are shaped by preference falsification, impression management and coherence heuristics," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 385-412, April.
    7. Cui, Peng-Bi, 2023. "Exploring the foundation of social diversity and coherence with a novel attraction–repulsion model framework," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 618(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Leonie Geyer & Patrick Mellacher, 2024. "Simulating Party Competition in Dynamic Voter Distributions," Graz Economics Papers 2024-19, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    10. 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.
    11. Deffuant, Guillaume & Roubin, Thibaut, 2023. "Emergence of group hierarchy," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 611(C).
    12. Deffuant, Guillaume & Roubin, Thibaut, 2022. "Do interactions among unequal agents undermine those of low status?," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 592(C).
    13. Boschi, Gioia & Cammarota, Chiara & Kühn, Reimer, 2021. "Opinion dynamics with emergent collective memory: The impact of a long and heterogeneous news history," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 569(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2020. "A Survey on Nonstrategic Models of Opinion Dynamics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-29, December.
    16. Ambrosius, Floor H.W. & Kramer, Mark R. & Spiegel, Alisa & Bokkers, Eddie A.M. & Bock, Bettina B. & Hofstede, Gert Jan, 2022. "Diffusion of organic farming among Dutch pig farmers: An agent-based model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    17. Bruce Edmonds, 2020. "Co-developing beliefs and social influence networks—towards understanding socio-cognitive processes like Brexit," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 491-515, April.
    18. Takesue, Hirofumi, 2023. "Relative opinion similarity leads to the emergence of large clusters in opinion formation models," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 622(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Marijn A. Keijzer & Michael Mäs & Andreas Flache, 2018. "Communication in Online Social Networks Fosters Cultural Isolation," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-18, November.

    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:jcsosc:v:8:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s42001-024-00347-7. 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.