Persuasion dynamics

By G. Weisbuch, Guillaume Deffuant, Frédéric Amblard. 2004

144 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We here discuss a model of continuous opinion dynamics in which agents adjust continuous opinions as a result of random binary encounters whenever their diﬀerence in opinion is below a given threshold. We concentrate on the version of the model in the presence of few extremists which might drive the dynamics to generalised extremism. The intricate regime diagram is explained by a combination of meso-scale features involving the ﬁrst interaction steps

Subfields: Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3d636c2a8639c1dad763761c1f8ca0788cd036d6

How researchers see this paper

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

In Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics

Eitan Tadmor

In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

Citations in the corpus

Continuous Opinion Dynamics under Bounded Confidence: A Survey (2007, background): “This drifting phenomenon is the source of the drift to the extremes studied in (24; 33).”
Heterophilious Dynamics Enhances Consensus (2013, background): “Self-organized dynamics is found in many other areas, from pedestrian and traffic dynamics [64, 92], social networks and economics [48, 66, 69, 77, 83], complex networks [5, 44, 91], and opinion dynamics [7, 23, 42, 49, 50, 63, 75, 105, 110, 109], all the way to applications in marketing [2, 3], pro”
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].”