IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aim/wpaimx/1909.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Haggling on Values: Towards Consensus or Trouble

Author

Abstract

We present a model showing the evolution of an organization of agents who discuss democratically about good practices. This model feeds on a field study we did for a few years in France where we followed Non Profit Organizations, called AMAP (a french short food chain), and observed their construction through time at the regional and national level. Most of the hypothesis we make are here either based on the literature on opinion diffusion or on the results of our field study. By defining dynamics where agents influence each other, make collective decision at the group level, and decide to stay in or leave their respective groups, we analyse the effect of different parameters, like size of organizations, on the stability and representativeness of these organizations. The models proves to be robust and we believe is easy to adapt to other context than AMAP. Moreover the article highlights the tension that exists between stability and representativeness in democratic organizations, along with the negative effect of increasing the number of topics to discuss and the positive effect of having openminded members.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:aim:wpaimx:1909
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://new.amse-aixmarseille.fr/sites/default/files/working_papers/wp_2019_-_nr_09.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    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. Antonio A. Casilli & Juliette Rouchier & Paola Tubaro, 2014. "How to Build Consensus in a Health-Oriented Online Community: Modeling a “Pro-Ana” Forum," Post-Print hal-01463904, HAL.
    3. 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.
    4. Gérard Weisbuch & Guillaume Deffuant & Frederic Amblard & Jean Pierre Nadal, 2001. "Interacting Agents and Continuous Opinions Dynamics," Working Papers 01-11-072, Santa Fe Institute.
    5. Juliette Rouchier & Emily Tanimura, 2012. "When overconfident agents slow down collective learning," Post-Print hal-00623966, HAL.
    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. Juliette Rouchier & Emily Tanimura, 2012. "When overconfident agents slow down collective learning," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00623966, HAL.
    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. 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.

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Diemo Urbig & Jan Lorenz & Heiko Herzberg, 2008. "Opinion Dynamics: the Effect of the Number of Peers Met at Once," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 11(2), pages 1-4.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    11. Laurent Salzarulo, 2006. "A Continuous Opinion Dynamics Model Based on the Principle of Meta-Contrast," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13.
    12. Byrka, Katarzyna & Jȩdrzejewski, Arkadiusz & Sznajd-Weron, Katarzyna & Weron, Rafał, 2016. "Difficulty is critical: The importance of social factors in modeling diffusion of green products and practices," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 723-735.
    13. Deffuant, Guillaume & Huet, Sylvie, 2007. "Propagation effects of filtering incongruent information," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(8), pages 816-825, August.
    14. Biondo, A.E. & Pluchino, A. & Rapisarda, A., 2018. "Modeling surveys effects in political competitions," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 503(C), pages 714-726.
    15. Zhu, Hou & Hu, Bin, 2018. "Impact of information on public opinion reversal—An agent based model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 512(C), pages 578-587.
    16. 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.
    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. 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).
    19. Ding, Haixin & Xie, Li, 2024. "The applicability of positive information in negative opinion management: An attitude-laden communication perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 645(C).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    democracy; organizations; opinion dynamics; agent based modeling;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:aim:wpaimx:1909. 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: Gregory Cornu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/amseafr.html .

    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.