Formal Models of Conflicting Social Influence

  • Truls Pedersen
  • Marija SlavkovikEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10621)


Social influence is the process in which an agent is under pressure to form her opinion on an issue based on the opinions expresses by her peers. An obvious reaction to social influence is to change ones opinions to conform to the pressure. The study of formal models of social influence has been drawing attention in the literature. A comparatively under-explored aspect of social influence is its role as an instrument of social network change. Agents with an eclectic milieu of peers might find themselves under conflicting social pressures. In this case to conform to social influence by changing one’s beliefs is no longer an option and the agent may seek to distance herself from some of her peers to relieve the pressure. We build a formal model of social influence that allows us to study social influence as a source of conflict and an instrument of network change. Within our framework different models of social influence can be defined but also compared to each other.


  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. J. ACM 49(5), 672–713 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asch, S.E.: Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol. Monogr. 70(9), 1–70 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baltag, A., Christoff, Z., Rendsvig, R.K., Smets, S.: Dynamic epistemic logic of diffusion and prediction in threshold models (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boella, G., Pigozzi, G., Slavkovik, M., Torre, L.: Group intention is social choice with commitment. In: Vos, M., Fornara, N., Pitt, J.V., Vouros, G. (eds.) COIN 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6541, pp. 152–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21268-0_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christoff, Z., Hansen, J.U.: A two-tiered formalization of social influence. In: Grossi, D., Roy, O., Huang, H. (eds.) LORI 2013. LNCS, vol. 8196, pp. 68–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40948-6_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christoff, Z., Hansen, J.U., Proietti, C.: Reflecting on social influence in networks. J. Logic Lang. Inform. 25(3), 299–333 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    DeGroot, M.: Reaching a consensus. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69(345), 118–121 (1974)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Festinger, L.: Informal social communication. Psychol. Rev. 57(5), 271–282 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grandi, U., Lorini, E., Novaro, A., Perrussel, L.: Strategic disclosure of opinions on a social network. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2017) (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grandi, U., Lorini, E., Perrussel, L.: Strategic disclosure of opinions on a social network: (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents & #38; Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2016, pp. 1391–1392. IFAAMAS (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Granovetter, M.: Threshold models of collective behavior. Am. J. Sociol. 83(6), 1420–1443 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grossi, D., Pigozzi, G.: Judgment Aggregation: A Primer. Morgan and Claypool Publishers, San Rafael (2014)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Itai, A., Rodeh, M.: Finding a minimum circuit in a graph. SIAM J. Comput. 7(4), 413–423 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krackhardt, D.: The Ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. Res. Sociol. Organ. 16, 183–210 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lang, L., Pigozzi, P., Slavkovik, M., van der Torre, L., Vesic, S.: A partial taxonomy of judgment aggregation rules, and their properties. Soc. Choice Welfare 48, 1–30 (2016)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu, F., Seligman, J., Girard, P.: Logical dynamics of belief change in the community. Synthese 191(11), 2403–2431 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moscovici, S., Personnaz, B.: Studies in social influence. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 16, 270–282 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Noelle-Neumann, E.: The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. J. Commun. 24(2), 43–51 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Gorman, H.J.: The discovery of pluralistic ignorance: an ironic lesson. J. Hist. Behav. Sci. 22(4), 333–347 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pauly, M.: A modal logic for coalitional power in games. J. Log. Comput. 12(1), 149–166 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, SFCS 1977, pp. 46–57. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (1977)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Proietti, C.: The dynamics of group polarization. In: Baltag, A., Seligman, J., Yamada, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the Logic, Rationality, and Interaction - 6th International Workshop, LORI 2017, Sapporo, Japan, 11–14 September 2015. (2017, Forthcoming)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schelling, T.: Dynamic models of segregation. J. Math. Sociol. 1, 143–186 (1971)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shapley, L.S., Shubik, M.: A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 48(3), 787–792 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smets, S., Velázquez-Quesada, F.R.: How to make friends: a logical approach to social group creation. In: Baltag, A., Seligman, J., Yamada, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the Logic, Rationality, and Interaction - 6th International Workshop, LORI 2017, Sapporo, Japan, 11–14 September 2015. (2017, Forthcoming)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations