The search result changed since you submitted your search request. Documents might be displayed in a different sort order.
  • search hit 52 of 60
Back to Result List

About the power to enforce and prevent consensus by manipulating communication rules

  • We explore the possibilities of enforcing and preventing consensus in continuous opinion dynamics that result from modifications in the communication rules. We refer to the model of Weisbuch and Deffuant, where n agents adjust their continuous opinions as a result of random pairwise encounters whenever their opinions differ not more than a given bound of confidence ε. A high ε leads to consensus, while a lower ε leads to a fragmentation into several opinion clusters. We drop the random encounter assumption and ask: How small may ε be such that consensus is still possible with a certain communication plan for the entire group? Mathematical analysis shows that ε may be significantly smaller than in the random pairwise case. On the other hand, we ask: How large may ε be such that preventing consensus is still possible? In answering this question, we prove Fortunato's simulation result that consensus cannot be prevented for ε 0.5 for large groups. Next, we consider opinion dynamics under different individual strategies and examine theirWe explore the possibilities of enforcing and preventing consensus in continuous opinion dynamics that result from modifications in the communication rules. We refer to the model of Weisbuch and Deffuant, where n agents adjust their continuous opinions as a result of random pairwise encounters whenever their opinions differ not more than a given bound of confidence ε. A high ε leads to consensus, while a lower ε leads to a fragmentation into several opinion clusters. We drop the random encounter assumption and ask: How small may ε be such that consensus is still possible with a certain communication plan for the entire group? Mathematical analysis shows that ε may be significantly smaller than in the random pairwise case. On the other hand, we ask: How large may ε be such that preventing consensus is still possible? In answering this question, we prove Fortunato's simulation result that consensus cannot be prevented for ε 0.5 for large groups. Next, we consider opinion dynamics under different individual strategies and examine their power to increase the chances of consensus. One result is that balancing agents increase chances of consensus, especially if the agents are cautious in adapting their opinions. However, curious agents increase chances of consensus only if those agents are not cautious in adapting their opinions.show moreshow less

Export metadata

Additional Services

Search Google Scholar
Metadaten
Author: Jan Lorenz, Diemo UrbigORCiD
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219525907000982
ISSN:0219-5259
Title of the source (English):Advances in Complex Systems
Document Type:Scientific journal article peer-reviewed
Language:English
Year of publication:2007
Volume/Year:10
Issue number:02
First Page:251
Last Page:269
Faculty/Chair:Fakultät 5 Wirtschaft, Recht und Gesellschaft / FG ABWL, insbesondere empirische Unternehmensforschung und Transformation
Einverstanden ✔
Diese Webseite verwendet technisch erforderliche Session-Cookies. Durch die weitere Nutzung der Webseite stimmen Sie diesem zu. Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier.