Skip to main content

Polarizing Opinion Dynamics with Confirmation Bias

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Social Informatics (SocInfo 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13618))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1158 Accesses

Abstract

Social media and online networks have enabled discussions between users at a planetary scale on controversial topics. However, instead of seeing users converging to a consensus, they tend to partition into groups holding diametric opinions. In this work we propose an opinion dynamics model that starts from a given graph topology, and updates in each iteration both the opinions of the agents, and the listening structure of each agent, assuming there is confirmation bias. We analyze our model, both theoretically and empirically, and prove that it generates a listening structure that is likely to be polarized. We show a novel application of our model, specifically how it can be used to find polarized niches across different Twitter layers. Finally, we evaluate and compare our model to other polarization models on various synthetic datasets, showing that it yields equilibria with unique characteristics, including high polarization and low disagreement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://github.com/soramame0518/echo_chamber_model.

  2. 2.

    The sum of the arcs is 1, so if they are not all equal there exists an arc less than the average \(\frac{1}{|N^{-*}_u|}\).

References

  1. Concept of echo chamber. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)

  2. Abbe, E., Bandeira, A.S., Hall, G.: Exact recovery in the stochastic block model. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 62(1), 471–487 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Abebe, R., Kleinberg, J., Parkes, D., Tsourakakis, C.E.: Opinion dynamics with varying susceptibility to persuasion. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pp. 1089–1098 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M.: Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J. Econom. Perspect. 31(2), 211–36 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Auletta, V., Fanelli, A., Ferraioli, D.: Consensus in opinion formation processes in fully evolving environments. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33(01), pp. 6022–6029 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baumann, F., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Sokolov, I.M., Starnini, M.: Modeling echo chambers and polarization dynamics in social networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124(4), 048301 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Bessi, A., et al.: Viral misinformation: the role of homophily and polarization. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 355–356 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., Shapiro, J.M.: Cross-country trends in affective polarization. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brandts, J., Giritligil, A.E., Weber, R.A.: An experimental study of persuasion bias and social influence in networks. Eur. Econ. Rev. 80, 214–229 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., Starnini, M.: The echo chamber effect on social media. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(9), p. e2023301118 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cossard, A., De Francisci Morales, G., Kalimeri, K., Mejova, Y., Paolotti, D., Starnini, M.: Falling into the echo chamber: the Italian vaccination debate on twitter. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 14(1), pp. 130–140, May 2020

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dandekar, P., Goel, A., Lee, D.T.: Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110(15), 5791–5796 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. DeGroot, M.H.: Reaching a consensus. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69(345), 118–121 (1974)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Del Vicario, M., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H., Quattrociocchi, W.: Modeling confirmation bias and polarization. Sci. Rep. 7, 06 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Del Vicario, M., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H.E., Quattrociocchi, W.: Modeling confirmation bias and polarization. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 1–9 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  16. DeMarzo, P.M., Vayanos, D., Zwiebel, J.: Persuasion bias, social influence, and unidimensional opinions. Q. J. Econ. 118(3), 909–968 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Friedkin, N.E., Johnsen, E.C.: Social influence and opinions. J. Math. Sociol. 15(3–4), 193–206 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Friedkin, N.E., Johnsen, E.C.: Social positions in influence networks. Soc. Netw. 19(3), 209–222 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gaitonde, J., Kleinberg, J., Tardos, É.: Polarization in geometric opinion dynamics. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pp. 499–519 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Garimella, K., Morales, G.D.F., Gionis, A., Mathioudakis, M.: Quantifying controversy on social media. Trans. Soc. Comput. 1(1), 1–27 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hazla, J., Jin, Y., Mossel, E., Ramnarayan, G.: A geometric model of opinion polarization. CoRR, abs/1910.05274 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hk, J., Jin, Y., Mossel, E., Ramnarayan, G., et al.: A geometric model of opinion polarization. Technical report (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Karypis, G., Kumar, V.: A fast and high quality multilevel scheme for partitioning irregular graphs. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 20, 01 (1999)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. E. Klein. Why we’re polarized. Simon and Schuster, 2020

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lord, C.G., Ross, L., Lepper, M.R.: Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37(11), 2098 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mossel, E., Tamuz, O., et al.: Opinion exchange dynamics. Probab. Surv. 14, 155–204 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Musco, C., Musco, C., Tsourakakis, C.E.: Minimizing polarization and disagreement in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, pp. 369–378 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nickerson, R.S.: Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2(2), 175–220 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sasahara, K., Chen, W., Peng, H., Ciampaglia, G., Flammini, A., Menczer, F.: Social influence and unfollowing accelerate the emergence of echo chambers. J. Comput. Soc. Sci. 4, 1–22 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charalampos E. Tsourakakis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

A Appendix

A Appendix

1.1 A.1 Proof of Lemma 2

Proof

Consider the opinion \(x^\star _u\) of node u at equilibrium with a negative in-neighborhood, it has to satisfy Eq. (4), i.e.,

$$ x^\star _u = \alpha _u s_u +(1-\alpha _u) \sum _{v \rightarrow u} W^\star _{v \rightarrow u} x^\star _v.$$

When \(x^\star _u>0\), it is necessary that \(s_u>0\), otherwise \(x^\star _u<0\) since the second term in the summation is negative. By rearranging the inequality \(\alpha _u s_u +(1-\alpha _u) \sum _{v \rightarrow u} W^\star _{v \rightarrow u} x^\star _v>0\) we obtain \(\frac{s_u}{ \sum _{v \rightarrow u} W_{v\rightarrow u} |x^\star _v|} > \frac{1-\alpha _u}{\alpha _u}\). Furthermore, \( W_{v\rightarrow u}= \frac{1}{|N^{-*}_u|}\) for all in-neighbors \( v \in N^{-*}_u \). To see why, for the sake of contradiction, assume without loss of generalityFootnote 2 that there exists an arc \(v \rightarrow u\) such that \(W^\star _{v \rightarrow u}<\frac{1}{|N^{-*}_u|}\). Observe that each arc weight is updated in every iteration according to Eqs. (5) and (6). It is straight-forward to check that in that case \(W^\star _{v \rightarrow u}\) will decrease in an iteration, contradicting its equilibrium property. Furthermore, in order for all the incoming arcs to u have the same weight, the update term \(\eta x^\star _v x^\star _u\) must be equal for all \(v \in N^{-*}_u\), and it must not zero-out the weight. These two facts imply that \(x^\star _v=x\) for some value x for all \(v \in N^{-*}_u\), and \(\frac{1}{|N^{-*}_u|}-\eta x^\star _v x_u>0 \) which implies the last condition.    \(\blacksquare \)

1.2 A.2 Example of Section 4.3

Fig. 5.
figure 5

Histogram of user retweet polarity ground truth and the prediction by FJ model on debate dataset.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Chen, T., Wang, X., Tsourakakis, C.E. (2022). Polarizing Opinion Dynamics with Confirmation Bias. In: Hopfgartner, F., Jaidka, K., Mayr, P., Jose, J., Breitsohl, J. (eds) Social Informatics. SocInfo 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13618. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19097-1_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19097-1_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-19096-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-19097-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics