Paper detail

A model of interacting multiple choices of continuous opinions

We present a model of interacting multiple choices of opinions. At each step of the process, a listener is persuaded by his/her neighbour, the lobbyist, to modify his/her opinion on two different choices of event. Whether or not the listener will be convinced by the lobbyist depends on the difference between his/her opinion with that of the lobbyist, and with that of the revealed social opinion (the social pressure). If the listener is convinced, he/she will modify his/her opinion and update his/her revealed preference, and proceed to persuade his/her next neighbour. If the listener is not convinced by the lobbyist, he/she will retain his/her revealed preference, and try to persuade the lobbyist to change his/her opinion. In this case, the direction of opinion propagation is reversed. A consensus is reached when all the revealed preference is the same. Our numerical results show that consensus can always be attained in this model. However, the time needed to achieve consensus, or the so-called convergence time, is longer if the listener is more concerned with the public opinion, or is less likely to be influenced by the lobbyist.

preprint2016arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.