Sociophysics pp 93-100 | Cite as

Sociophysics: An Overview of Emblematic Founding Models

  • Serge Galam
Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)


In this chapter, I review the series of rather different models that I have been developing over the past three decades (1980–2010). They go in several directions, and focus on five different sociopolitical phenomena. To have these subjects accepted by the physics community was a long and tedious fight[1].


Presidential Election Terrorist Group Opinion Dynamic Democratic Country European Constitution 
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.


  1. 1.
    S. Galam, “Sociophysics: a personal testimony”, Physica A 336, 49–55 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Galam, “Le dangereux seuil critique du FN”, \(\mathcal{L}\)e \(\mathcal{M}\)onde, Vendredi 30 Mai, 17 (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Galam, “Crier, mais pourquoi”, Libération, Vendredi 17 Avril, 6 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Galam, “Le vote majoritaire est-il totalitaire ?”, Pour La Science, Hors série, Les Mathématiques Sociales, 90–94 July (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Galam, “Citation” in an editorial from Jean dOrmesson, front page, daily newspaper Le Figaro, Mardi 4 Juin, 1 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Galam, “Risque de raz-de-marée FN”, Entretien, France Soir, La Une et 3, Mercredi 5 Juin (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Galam, “Le FN au microscope”, Le Minotaure 6, 88–91, Avril (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Galam, “Pourquoi des élections si serrées ?”, Le Monde, Mercredi 20 Septembre, 22 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Galam, “Les mathématiques s’invitent dans le débat européen”, Interview par P. Lehir, Le Monde, Samedi 26 Février, 23 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Galam, “Les mathématiques s’invitent dans le débat européen”, Le Monde, Lundi 11 Avril, 15 (2005), Reproduced in the international weekly selection of Le Monde 2005Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Galam, “Les mathématiques s’invitent dans le débat européen”, Le Monde, Lundi 11 Avril, 15 (2005), Reproduced in “TA NEA”, Greek daily newspaper March 3 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stauffer, D., S. Moss de Oliveira, P. de Oliveira, and J. Sa Martins, “Biology, sociology, geology by computational physicists”, Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Econophysics and Sociophysics: Trends and Perspectives, B. K. Chakrabarti, A. Chakraborti, A. Chatterjee (Eds.), Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Castellano, S. Fortunato and V. Loreto, “Statistical physics of social dynamics”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 591–646 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Galam, Y. Gefen and Y. Shapir, “Sociophysics: A mean behavior model for the process of strike”, Math. J. of Sociology 9, 1–13 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Galam and S. Moscovici, “Towards a theory of collective phenomena: Consensus and attitude changes in groups”, Euro. J. of Social Psy. 21, 49–74 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Galam and S. Moscovici, “Compromise versus polarization in group decision making”, in Defense Decision Making, R. Avenhaus, H. Karkar and M. Rudnianski (Eds), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 40–51 (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Galam and S. Moscovici, “A theory of collective decision making in hierarchical and non-hierarchical groups”, Russian Psy. J. 13, 93–103 (1993)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Galam and S. Moscovici, “Towards a theory of collective phenomena: II. Conformity and power”, Euro. J. of Social Psy., 24, 481–495 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. Galam and S. Moscovici, “Towards a theory of collective phenomena: III. Conflicts and forms of power”, Euro. J. of Social Psy., 25, 217–229 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Galam, “When humans interact like atoms”, Understanding group behavior, vol. I, Chap. 12, 293–312, Davis and Witte, Eds, Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., New Jersey (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Galam, “Rational group decision making: a random field Ising model at T = 0”, Physica A, 238, 66–80 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. Galam and J. D. Zucker, “From Individual Choice to Group Decision Making”, Physica A 287, 644–659 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Galam, “Universality of Group Decision Making”, Traffic and Granular Flow ’99 D. Helbing et al, Eds., Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Galam, “Majority rule, hierarchical structures and democratic totalitarism: a statistical approach”, J. of Math. Psychology 30, 426–434 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Galam, “Social paradoxes of majority rule voting and renormalization group”, J. of Stat. Phys. 61, 943–951 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Galam, “Political paradoxes of majority rule voting and hierarchical systems”, Int. J. General Systems 18, 191–200 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Galam, “Real space renormalization group and social paradoxes in hierarchical organisations”, Models of self-organization in complex systems (Moses) Akademie-Verlag, Berlin V. 64, 53–59 (1991)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Galam, “Paradoxes de la regle majoritaire dans les systemes hiérarchiques”, Revue de Bibliologie, 38, 62–68 (1993)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    S. Galam, “Application of Statistical Physics to Politics”, Physica A 274, 132–139 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. Galam, “Real space renormalization group and totalitarian paradox of majority rule voting”, Physica A 285, 66–76 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    S. Galam and S. Wonczak, “Dictatorship from Majority Rule Voting”, Eur. Phys. J. B 18, 183–186 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. Galam, “Democratic Voting in Hierarchical Structures”, Application of Simulation to Social Sciences, G. Ballot and G. Weisbush, Eds. Hermes, Paris, 171–180 (2000)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    S. Galam, “Building a Dictatorship from Majority Rule Voting”, ECAI 2000 Modelling Artificial Societies, C. Jonker et al, Eds., Humboldt U. Press (ISSN: 0863-0957), 23–26 (2001)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    S. Galam, “How to Become a Dictator”, Scaling and disordered systems. International Workshop and Collection of Articles Honoring Professor Antonio Coniglio on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. F. Family. M. Daoud. H.J. Herrmann and H.E. Stanley, Eds., World Scientific, 243–249 (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. Galam, “Dictatorship effect of the majority rule voting in hierarchical systems”, Self-Organisation and Evolution of Social Systems, Chap. 8, Cambridge University Press, C. Hemelrijk (Ed.) (2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    S. Galam, “Stability of leadership in bottom-up hierarchical organizations”, Journal of Social Complexity 2 62–75 (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    S. Galam, “The September 11 attack: A percolation of individual passive support”, Eur. Phys. J. B 26 Rapid Note, 269–272 (2002)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    S. Galam and A. Mauger, “On reducing terrorism power: a hint from physics”, Physica A 323, 695–704 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    S. Galam, “Global physics: from percolation to terrorism,: guerilla warfare and clandestine activities”, Physica A 330, 139–149 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    S. Galam, “La détection des réseaux terroristes”, Stratégie et décision : La crise du 11 septembre, General Loup Francart et Isabelle Dufour, Economica, Paris (2002)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    S. Galam, “Terrorisme et percolation”, Pour La Science 306, 90–93, Avril (2003)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    S. Galam, “Global terrorism versus social permeability to underground activities”, in Econophysics and Sociophysics: Trends and Perspectives, B. K. Chakrabarti, A. Chakraborti, A. Chatterjee (Eds.), Chap. 14, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim (2006)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    S. Galam, “Comment on A landscape theory of aggregation”, British J. Political Sciences 28, 411–412 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    S. Galam, “Fragmentation versus stability in bimodal coalitions”, Physica A 230, 174–188 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    S. Galam, “Spontaneous coalitions forming: a model from spin glass”, arXiv:cond-mat/9901022 (1999)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    R. Florian and S. Galam, “Optimizing Conflicts in the Formation of Strategic Alliances”, Eur. Phys. J. B 16, 189 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    S. Galam, “Spontaneous Coalition Forming. Why Some Are Stable?”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 5th International Conference on Cellular Automata for Research and Industry, Springer-Verlag Heidelberg, 1–9 Vol. 2493 (2002)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    S. Galam, B. Chopard, A. Masselot and M. Droz, “Competing Species Dynamics”, Eur. Phys. J. B 4, 529–531 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    B. Chopard, M. Droz and S. Galam, “An Evolution Theory in Finite Size Systems”, Eur. Phys. J. B 16, Rapid Note, 575–578 (2000)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    S. Galam, “Minority Opinion Spreading in Random Geometry”, Eur. Phys. J. B 25 Rapid Note, 403–406 (2002)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    S. Galam, B. Chopard and M. Droz, “Killer geometries in competing species dynamics”, Physica A 314, 256–263 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    S. Galam, “Modeling Rumors: The No Plane Pentagon French Hoax Case”, Physica A 320, 571–580 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    S. Galam, “Contrarian deterministic effect: the hung elections scenario”, Physica A 333, 453–460 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    S. Galam, “The dynamics of minority opinion in democratic debate” Physica A 336, 56–62 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    S. Galam and Bastien Chopard, “Threshold Phenomena versus Killer Clusters in Bimodal Competion for Standards”, Cognitive Economics – An Interdisciplinary Approach, P. Bourgine and J.-P. Nadal, Eds, Springer, 429–440 (2004)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    S. Galam and A. Vignes, “Fashion, novelty and optimality: an application from Physics”, Physica A 351, 605–619 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    S. Gekle, L. Peliti, and S. Galam, “Opinion dynamics in a three-choice system”, Eur. Phys. J. B 45, 569–575 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    S. Galam, “Heterogeneous beliefs, segregation, and extremism in the making of public opinions”, Phys. Rev. E 71, 046123-1-5 (2005)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    S. Galam, “Local dynamics vs. social mechanisms: A unifying frame”, Europhys. Lett. 70, 705–711 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    C. Borghesi and S. Galam, “Chaotic, staggered, and polarized dynamics in opinion forming: The contrarian effect”, Phys. Rev. E 73 066118 (1–9) (2006)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    S. Galam, “Opinion dynamics, minority spreading and heterogeneous beliefs”, in Econophysics and Sociophysics: Trends and Perspectives, B. K. Chakrabarti, A. Chakraborti, A. Chatterjee (Eds.), Chap. 13, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim (2006)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    S. Galam, “From 2000 Bush–Gore to 2006 Italian elections: voting at fifty–fifty and the contrarian effect”, Quality and Quantity Journal 41 579–589 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    S. Galam and F. Jacobs, “The role of inflexible minorities in the breaking of democratic opinion dynamics”, Physica A 381 366–376 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Serge Galam
    • 1
  1. 1.CREAParisFrance

Personalised recommendations