## Abstract

In this paper we explore the relationship between norms of belief revision that may be adopted by members of a community and the resulting dynamic properties of the distribution of beliefs across that community. We show that at a qualitative level many aspects of social belief change can be obtained from a very simple model, which we call ‘threshold influence’. In particular, we focus on the question of what makes the beliefs of a community stable under various dynamical situations. We also consider refinements and alternatives to the ‘threshold’ model, the most significant of which is to consider changes to plausibility judgements rather than mere beliefs. We show first that some such change is mandated by difficult problems with belief-based dynamics related to the need to decide on an order in which different beliefs are considered. Secondly, we show that the resulting plausibility-based account results in a deterministic dynamical system that is *non*-deterministic at the level of beliefs.

## Keywords

Belief revision Belief influence Community Plausibility judgement## Notes

### Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Frank Zenker and Carlo Proietti for their efforts in putting together this volum. A previous version of the paper was presented at the LOGICIC kick-off workshop: Belief Change in Social Context in Amsterdam, at the Centre for Mathematical Social Science seminar series in Auckland, New Zealand, and at the Workshop on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning in Guiyang, China. We would like to thank the participants of each event, and in particular Christian List, Zoé Christoff, Chenwei Shi, Shaun White and Mark C. Wilson for valuable comments and discussions. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous referees for their useful comments. Fenrong Liu is supported by the Project of National Social Science Foundation of China (No.13AZX018) and Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research Program (20131089292).

## References

- Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions.
*Journal of Symbolic Logic*,*50*, 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Andréka, H., Ryan, M., & Schobbens, P. Y. (2002). Operators and laws for combining preferential relations.
*Journal of Logic and Computation*,*12*, 12–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bailey, N. (1975).
*The mathematical theory of infectious diseases and its applications*. High Wycombe: Charles Griffin & Company.Google Scholar - Bala, V., Goyal, S. (1996). Learning from Neighbors. Econometric Institute Reports. Erasmus University. http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=3XrESgAACAAJ
- Baltag, A., Moss, L., Solecki, S. (1998). The logic of public announcements, common knowledge and private suspicions. In: TARK 98.Google Scholar
- Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2008). A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision. In M. W. G. Bonanno & W. van der Hoek (Eds.),
*Logic and the foundations of game and decision theory, texts in logic and games*(Vol. 3). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar - Bass, F. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables.
*Management Science, 15*(5), 215–227.Google Scholar - Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., & Venema, Y. (2001).
*Modal logic*. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Burgess, J. (1984).
*Basic tense logic, handbook of philosophical logic*(2nd ed.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar - DeGroot, M. (1974). Reaching a consensus.
*Journal of the American Statistical Association*,*69*(345), 118–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Domingos, P., Richardson, M. (2002). Mining the network value of customers. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp. 57–66. ACM Press.Google Scholar
- French, J. (1956). A formal theory of social power.
*Psychological Review*,*63*(3), 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gilbert, N., Troitzsch, K. (2005). Simulation for the social scientist, 2 edn. Open University Press. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike07-20
- Girard, P., Seligman, J., & Liu, F. (2012). General dynamic dynamic logic. In T. Bolander, T. Braüner, S. Ghilardi, & L. S. Moss (Eds.),
*Advances in modal logic*(pp. 239–260). London: College Publications.Google Scholar - Golub, B., & Jackson, M. (2010). Naive learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds.
*American Economic Journal: Microeconomics*,*2*(1), 112–149.Google Scholar - Jackson, M. O., et al. (2008).
*Social and economic networks*. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar - Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J., Tardos, E. (2003). Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In: Proceedings the 9th Acm International Conference, pp. 137–146. ACM Press.Google Scholar
- Kermack, W. O., & McKendrick, A. G. (1927). A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics.
*Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A*,*115*, 700–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Liang, Z., & Seligman, J. (2011). A logical model of the dynamics of peer pressure.
*Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science*,*278*, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Mossel, E., Neeman, J., Tamuz, O. (2012). Majority dynamics and aggregation of information in social networks. arXiv, preprint arXiv:1207.0893.Google Scholar
- Nayak, A., Nelson, P., & Polansky, H. (1996). Belief change as change in epistemic entrenchment.
*Synthese*,*109*(2), 143–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Seligman, J., Liu, F., Girard, P. (2011). Logic in the community. In: M. Banerjee, A. Seth (eds.) Logic and its applications—4th Indian Conference, ICLA 2011, Delhi, India, January 5–11, 2011. Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6521, pp. 178–188.Google Scholar
- Seligman, J., Liu, F., Girard, P. (2013). Facebook and the epistemic logic of friendship. In: B.C. Schipper (ed.) Proceedings of the 14th Conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge,break pp. 229–238 (Chennai, India).Google Scholar
- van Benthem, J. (2007). Dynamic logic for belief revision.
*Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic*,*17*, 129–156.Google Scholar - van Benthem, J. (2011).
*Logical dynamics of information and interaction*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., & Kooi, B. (2006). Logics of communication and change.
*Information and Computation*,*204*(11), 1620–1662.Google Scholar - van Ditmarsch, H. (2005). Prolegomena to dynamic logic for belief revision.
*Synthese(Knowledge, Rationality & Action)*,*147*, 229–275.Google Scholar - Veltman, F. (1985). Logics for conditionals. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar