Paper detail

Interacting social processes on interconnected networks

We propose and study a model for the interplay between two different dynamical processes --one for opinion formation and the other for decision making-- on two interconnected networks $A$ and $B$. The opinion dynamics on network $A$ corresponds to that of the M-model, where the state of each agent can take one of four possible values ($S=-2,-1,1,2$), describing its level of agreement on a given issue. The likelihood to become an extremist ($S=\pm 2$) or a moderate ($S=\pm 1$) is controlled by a reinforcement parameter $r \ge 0$. The decision making dynamics on network $B$ is akin to that of the Abrams-Strogatz model, where agents can be either in favor ($S=+1$) or against ($S=-1$) the issue. The probability that an agent changes its state is proportional to the fraction of neighbors that hold the opposite state raised to a power $β$. Starting from a polarized case scenario in which all agents of network $A$ hold positive orientations while all agents of network $B$ have a negative orientation, we explore the conditions under which one of the dynamics prevails over the other, imposing its initial orientation. We find that, for a given value of $β$, the two-network system reaches a consensus in the positive state (initial state of network $A$) when the reinforcement overcomes a crossover value $r^*(β)$, while a negative consensus happens for $r<r^*(β)$. In the $r-β$ phase space, the system displays a transition at a critical threshold $β_c$, from a coexistence of both orientations for $β<β_c$ to a dominance of one orientation for $β>β_c$. We develop an analytical mean-field approach that gives an insight into these regimes and shows that both dynamics are equivalent along the crossover line $(r^*,β^*)$.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.