The European Physical Journal B

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 339–343 | Cite as

Bounded confidence and social networks

  • G. WeisbuchEmail author


In the so-called bounded confidence model proposed by Deffuant et al, agents can influence each other’s opinion provided that the opinions are already sufficiently close enough. We discuss here the influence of possible social network topologies on the dynamics of this model.


Social Network Network Topology Confidence Model Social Network Topology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    H. Föllmer, J. Math. Econom. 1/1, 51 (1974)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Galam, Y. Gefen, Y. Shapir, Math. J. Soc. 9, 1 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    B.W. Arthur, Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Orléan, J. Economic Behavior and Organization 28, 257 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Albert, A.L. Barabási, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 47 (2002)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3200 (2001)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Deffuant, Final report of project FAIR 3 CT 2092, 2001 freport.pdf, pp. 56-69Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H.P. Young, M.A. Burke, Am. Econ. Rev. 91, 559 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Deffuant, D. Neau, F. Amblard, G. Weisbuch, Adv. Complex Syst. 3, 87 (2000); G. Weisbuch, G. Deffuant, F. Amblard, J.-P. Nadal, Complexity 7(3), 55 (2002); G. Deffuant, F. Amblard, G. Weisbuch, T. Faure, J. Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 5, 1 (2002), Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Hegselmann, U. Krause, J. Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 5, issue 3, paper 2 (2002) (; U. Krause, in Modellierung und Simulation von Dynamiken mit vielen interagierenden Akteuren, edited by U. Krause, M. Stöckler (Bremen University, 1997), p. 37Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Ben-Naim, P.L. Krapivsky, S. Redner, Physica D 183, 190 (2003) (cond-mat/0212313)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Axelrod, J. Conflict Resolut. 41, 203 (1997); C. Castellano, M. Marsili, A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3536 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Stauffer, H. Meyer-Ortmanns, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 15, issue 2 (2004); D. Stauffer, A.O. Sousa, cond-mat/0310243 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. Derrida, H. Flyvbjerg, J. Phys. A 19, L1003 (1986)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Neau, Révisions des croyances dans un systéme d’agents en interaction, Rapport d’option de l’école polytechnique, available at (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin/Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Physique Statistique (Laboratoire associé au CNRS (URA 1306 á l’ENS et aux Universités Paris 6/7)) de l’École Normale SupérieureParis Cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations