How can extremism prevail? A study based on the relative agreement interaction model

By Guillaume Deffuant, Frédéric Amblard, G. Weisbuch, Thierry Faure. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 2002

596 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2a16b81eeb95764430353fcf8229646dd1c61df3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Boltzmann and Fokker–Planck equations modelling opinion formation in the presence of strong leaders (2009, background): “In recent years, opinion formation has received growing attention from physicists (Galam & Zucker 2000; Sznajd-Weron & Sznajd 2000; Deffuant et al. 2002), opening its own research field termed sociophysics that goes back to the pioneering work of Galam et al. (1982).”
A tutorial on modeling and analysis of dynamic social networks. Part I (2017, methodology): “ the opinions. Similar to the HK model, the DW model [123] deals with a group of n agents, each having the conﬁdence bound d > 0 (referred also to as the agent’s “threshold” [123] or “uncertainty” [210]). The opinions16 xi ∈ R are updated in accordance with the gossiping procedure as follows. At ”
An Individual‐Based Model of Innovation Diffusion Mixing Social Value and Individual Benefit1 (2005, methodology): “The results yield a typology which is very close to the one proposed in Deffuant et al. (2002b).”
Understanding Polarization: Meanings, Measures, and Model Evaluation (2017, methodology): “The same holds for the Deffuant et al. (2002) and Deffuant (2006) models, although in these models polarization as size parity appears as well.”
Fokker–Planck equations in the modeling of socio-economic phenomena (2017, background): “[30, 36, 42, 56, 89] Likewise, the dynamics of opinion formation in a multi-agent society has received growing attention.[12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 34, 41, 46, 52, 53, 54, 55, 91, 96] In view of the relation between parameters in the microscopic interaction rules, the society develops a certain 1”
Continuous Opinion Dynamics under Bounded Confidence: A Survey (2007, methodology): “The agent-based DW model has been extended two times to smooth bounds for the confidence interval, called the relative agreement model (24) and smooth bounded confidence model (44).”
Kinetic models of opinion formation (2006, unknown): “Sociophysics, Boltzmann equation, opinion formation.”
Cognitive perspectives on opinion dynamics: the role of knowledge in consensus formation, opinion divergence, and group polarization (2017, background): “This has also been discussed in terms of committed minorities [63], individual inﬂexibility [64], close-minded agents [65], narrow-minded agents [61, 62], extremists [14, 16, 18, 66, 67], and stubborn agents or actors [68–70].”
CONTINUOUS OPINIONS AND DISCRETE ACTIONS IN OPINION DYNAMICS PROBLEMS (2007, background): “models is that they are not well suited to describe the emergence of extremism in the system [12], since opinions have only two values and, therefore, no extremal opinions.”
Models of Social Influence: Towards the Next Frontiers (2017, background): “…studied for di erent variants of the bounded confidence model, particularly ones in which the tolerances are also modified during the interactions, di erent types of networks and di erent values of themodel parameters (Amblard & De uant 2004; De uant 2006; De uant et al. 2002; Lorenz 2008, 2010).”
Opinion Dynamics and Learning in Social Networks (2011, background): “A number of recent papers use these models to study various social phenomena, including opinion formation, information transmission, and effects of opinion leaders, using an analysis that is largely based on simulations (see [9, 35, 69, 96]).”