Advertisement

Modeling the Evolution of Ideological Landscapes Through Opinion Dynamics

  • Jan LorenzEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 528)

Abstract

This paper explores the possibilities to explain the stylized facts of empirically observed ideological landscapes through the bounded confidence model of opinion dynamics. Empirically, left–right self-placements are often not normally distributed but have multiple peaks (e.g., extreme-left-center-right-extreme). Some stylized facts are extracted from histograms from the European Social Survey. In the bounded confidence model, agents repeatedly adjust their ideological position in their ideological neighborhood. As an extension of the classical model, agents sometimes completely reassess their opinion depending on their ideological openness and their propensity for reassessment, respectively. Simulations show that this leads to the emergence of clustered ideological landscapes similar to the ones observed empirically. However, not all stylized facts of real world ideological landscapes can be reproduced with the model.

Changes in the model parameters show that the ideological landscapes are susceptible to interesting slow and abrupt changes. A long term goal is to integrate models of opinion dynamics into the classical spatial model of electoral competition as a dynamic element taking into account that voters themselves shape the political landscape by adjusting their positions and preferences through interaction.

Keywords

Continuous opinion dynamics Bounded confidence European social survey Stylized facts Homophile adaptation Random reconsideration Consensus Polarization Plurality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Presented at ESSA@Work Groningen 2015. The author thanks Klaus Troitzsch, Nigel Gilbert, and Geeske Scholz for comments and advice. A former version of the paper was presented at ECPR General Conference Sept 3–6, 2014, Glasgow in the Panel P289 “Preference Formation and Formal Models of Politics.” Part of this research was funded by the German Research Council (DFG) grant no. LO2024/2-1 “Opinion Dynamics and Collective Decision: Procedures, Behavior and Systems Dynamics.”

References

  1. 1.
    Deffuant, G., Neau, D., Amblard, F., Weisbuch, G.: Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Adv. Complex Syst. 3, 87–98 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deffuant, G., Neau, D., Amblard, F., Weisbuch, G.: How can extremism prevail? a study based on the relative agreement interaction model. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 5 (4), 1 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Downs, A.: An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harper & Row Publishers, New York (1957)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ESS Round 1–5: European Social Survey Cumulative Rounds 1–5 Data. Data file edition 1.1. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESS data (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ESS Round 6: European Social Survey Round 6 Data. Data file edition 2.0. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESS data (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feld, S., Bernard, G.: Homophily and the focused organization of ties. In: Hedström, P., Bearman, P. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. Chap. 22, pp. 521–543. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feldman, S.: Structure and consistency in public opinion: the role of core beliefs and values. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 32 (2), 416–440 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fowler, J.H., Laver, M.: A tournament of party decision rules. J. Confl. Resolut. 52 (1), 68–92 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hegselmann, R., Krause, U.: Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence, models, analysis and simulation. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 5 (3), 2 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krause, U.: A discrete nonlinear and non-autonomous model of consensus formation. In: Elyadi, S., Ladas, G., Popenda, J., Rakowski, J. (eds.) Communications in Difference Equations, pp. 227–236 Gordon and Breach Pub, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laver, M.: Policy and the dynamics of political competition. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 99 (02), 263–281 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laver, M., Schilperoord, M.: Spatial models of political competition with endogenous political parties. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 362 (1485), 1711–1721 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lorenz, J.: Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence: a survey. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 18 (12), 1819–1838 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lorenz, J.: Fostering consensus in multidimensional continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence. In: Helbing, D. (ed.) Managing Complexity: Insights, Concepts, Applications. Understanding Complex Systems, pp. 321–334. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lorenz, J.: Heterogeneous bounds of confidence: meet, discuss and find consensus! Complexity 15 (4), 43–52 (2010)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lorenz, J.: Netlogo Model: Continuous Opinion Dynamics under Bounded Confidence. NetLogo User Community Models (2012). See also http://janlo.de/applets/bc.html
  17. 17.
    Mäs, M., Flache, A., Helbing, D.: Individualization as driving force of clustering phenomena in humans. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6 (10), e1000959 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J.M.: Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27, 415–444 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pineda, M., Toral, R., Hernandez-Garcia, E.: Noisy continuous-opinion dynamics. J. Stat. Mech: Theory Exp. 2009 (08), P08001 (18pp.) (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Urbig, D., Lorenz, J., Herzberg, H.: Opinion dynamics: The effect of the number of peers met at once. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 11 (2), 4 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weisbuch, G., Deffuant, G., Amblard, F., Nadal, J.-P.: Meet, discuss, and segregate! Complexity 7 (3), 55–63 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilensky, U.: NetLogo.Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zaller, J.R.: The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. How Citizens Acquire Information and Convert It into Public Opinion, pp. 40–52. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jacobs University BremenFocus Area Diversity and Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences (BIGSSS)BremenGermany

Personalised recommendations