Modeling attitude diffusion and agenda setting: the MAMA model

  • Kiran LakkarajuEmail author
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Diffusion of Information and Influence in Social Networks


Attitude diffusion is where “attitudes” (general, relatively enduring evaluative responses to a topic) spread through a population. Attitudes play an incredibly important role in human decision-making (for instance, in health care decisions) and are a critical part of social psychology. However, existing models of diffusion do not account for key differentiating aspects of attitudes. In this work, we develop the “Multi-Agent, Multi-Attitude” (MAMA) model which incorporates several key factors of attitude diffusion: (1) multiple, interacting attitudes; (2) social influence between individuals; and (3) media influence. All three components have strong support from the social science community. Using the MAMA model, we re-visit the problem of influence maximization in a attitude diffusion setting where media influence is possible—we show that strategic manipulation of the media can lead to statistically significant decreases in diffusion of attitudes. Finally, to better understand the dynamics of the model, we use an absorbing Markov chain to characterize state transitions in the model.



Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the US Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. This document has SAND No. 2013-8667 C.


  1. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (2005) The influence of attitudes on behavior. In: Albarracin D, Johnson BT, Zanna MP (eds) The handbook of attitudes. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 173–221Google Scholar
  2. Axelrod R (1997) The dissemination of culture: a model with local convergence and global polarization. J Confl Resolut 41(2):203–226. doi: 10.1177/0022002797041002001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakshy E, Eckles D, Yan R, Rosenn I (2012) Social influence in social advertising: evidence from field experiments. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM conference on electronic commerce (EC ’12). ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bednar J, Bramson A, Jones-Rooy A, Page S (2006) Conformity, consistency, and cultural heterogeneity. University of Michigan, MimeoGoogle Scholar
  5. Castellano C, Vilone D, Vespignani A (2003) Incomplete ordering of the voter model on small-world networks. Europhys Lett 63(1):153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castellano C, Fortunato S, Loreto V (2009) Statistical physics of social dynamics. Rev Mod Phys 81:591–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen P, Redner S (2005) Majority rule dynamics in finite dimensions. Phys Rev E 71:036101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Csardi G, Nepusz T (2006) The igraph software package for complex network research. Int J Complex Syst 1695Google Scholar
  9. Dechter R (1992) From local to global consistency. Artif Intell 55(1):87–107MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Diekema DS (2012) Improving childhood vaccination rates. N Engl J Med 366(5):391–393MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Wadsworth Cengage LearningGoogle Scholar
  12. Fu W-T, Liao QV (2012) Information and attitude diffusion in networks. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on social computing, behaviorial-cultural modeling and prediction (SBP’12). Springer, Berlin, pp 205–213Google Scholar
  13. Granovetter M (1978) Threshold models of collective behavior. Am J Sociol 83(6):1420–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grinstead CM, Snell JL (1997) Introduction to probability. American Mathematical Soc., ProvidenceGoogle Scholar
  15. Gromet DM, Kunreuther H, Larrick RP (2013) Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proc Natl Acad Sci 201218453Google Scholar
  16. Guadagno RE, Cialdini RB (2010) Preference for consistency and social influence: a review of current research findings. Soc Influ 5(3):152–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kempe D, Kleinberg J, Tardos É (2003) Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In: Proceedings of 2003 SIGKDDGoogle Scholar
  18. Kennedy A, Basket M, Sheedy K (2011) Vaccine attitudes, concerns, and information sources reported by parents of young children: results from the 2009 HealthStyles survey. PEDIATRICS 127(Supplement):S92–S99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kraus SJ (1995) Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 21(1):58–75MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lakkaraju K (2015a) A preliminary model of media influence on attitude diffusion. In: Agarwal N, Xu K, Osgood N (eds) Social computing, behaviorial-cultural modeling, and prediction, number 9021 in lecture notes in computer science. Springer International Publishing, New York, pp 327–332Google Scholar
  21. Lakkaraju K (2015b) Reducing diffusion time in attitude diffusion models through agenda setting. In: Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’15), Richland, pp 1863–1864. (International foundation for autonomous agents and multiagent systems) Google Scholar
  22. Lakkaraju K, Speed A (2010) A cognitive-consistency based model of population wide attitude change. In: Proceedings of the 2010 AAAI fall symposium on complex adaptive systemsGoogle Scholar
  23. Lima F, Sousa A, Sumour M (2008) Majority-vote on directed Erdos–Renyi random graphs. Phys A 387:3503–3510MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Masuda N, Gibert N, Redner S (2010) Heterogeneous voter models. Phys Rev E 82(1):010103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCombs M (2005) A look at agenda-setting: past, present and future. Journal Stud 6(4):543–557Google Scholar
  26. Nyhan B, Reifler J, Richey S, Freed GL (2014) Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-2365 Google Scholar
  27. O’Keefe DJ (2002) Persuasion: theory and research. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  28. Omer SB, Pan WY, Halsey NA et al (2006) Nonmedical exemptions to school immunization requirements: secular trends and association of state policies with pertussis incidence. JAMA 296(14):1757–1763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Page SE, Sander LM, Schneider-Mizell CM (2007) Conformity and dissonance in generalized voter model. J Stat Phys 128:1279–1287MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Pereira LFC, Moreira FGB (2005) Majority-vote model on random graphs. Phys Rev E 71:016123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peres LR, Fontanari JF (2011) The media effect in Axelrod’s model explained. EPL (Europhys Lett) 96(3):38004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peretti-Watel P, Verger P, Raude J, Constant A, Gautier A, Jestin C, Beck F (2013) Dramatic change in public attitudes towards vaccination during the 2009 influenza a(H1N1) pandemic in france. Euro surveillance: bulletin Européen sur les maladies transmissibles = Eur Commun Dis Bull 18(44) (PMID: 24176658) Google Scholar
  33. Rai V, McAndrews K (2012) Decision-making and behavior change in residential adopters of solar PV. In: Proceedings of the behavior, energy and climate change conferenceGoogle Scholar
  34. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Ross SM (2010) Introduction to probability models. Academic Press, AmsterdamzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Russo JE, Carlson KA, Meloy MG, Yong K (2008) The goal of consistency as a cause of information distortion. J Exp Psychol Gen 137(3):456–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Salmon DA, Moulton LH, Omer SB, DeHart MP, Stokley S, Halsey NA (2005) Factors associated with refusal of childhood vaccines among parents of school-aged children: a case-control study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 159(5):470–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shakarian P, Eyre S, Paulo D (2013) A scalable heuristic for viral marketing under the tipping model. Soc Netw Anal Min 3(4):1225–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shoda Y, Mischel W (1998) Personality as a stable cognitive-affective activation network: characteristic patterns of behavior variation emerge from a stable personality structure. In: Read SJ, Miller LC (eds) Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998Google Scholar
  40. Simon D, Snow CJ, Read SJ (2004) The redux of cognitive consistency theories: evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. J Personal Soc Psychol 86(6):814–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sood V, Redner S (2005) Voter models on heterogenous graphs. Phys Rev Lett 94:178701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sood V, Antal T, Redner S (2008) Voter models on heterogeneous networks. Phys Rev E 77:041121MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stauffer D (2013) A biased review of sociophysics. J Stat Phys 151(1–2):9–20MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Suchecki K, Eguíluz VM, Miguel MS (2005) Conservation laws for the voter model in complex networks. Europhys Lett 69(2):228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Suchecki K, Eguiluz VM, Miguel MS (2008) Voter model dynamics in complex networks: role of dimensionality, disorder and degree distribution. arXiv:cond-mat/0504482v1
  46. Thagard P (2000) Coherence in thought and action. Life and mind: philosophical issues in biology and psychology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Visser PS, Clark LM (2003) Attitudes. In: Kuper A, Kuper J (eds) Social science encyclopedia. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Visser PS, Cooper J (2003) Attitude change. In: Hogg M, Cooper J (eds) Sage handbook of social psychology. Sage Publications, USAGoogle Scholar
  49. Vu HNN, Gehrau V (2010) Agenda diffusion: an integrated model of agenda setting and interpersonal communication. Journal Mass Commun Q 87(1):100–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393(6684):440–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations