Emergence of Dominant Opinions in Presence of Rigid Individuals

  • Suman Kalyan MaityEmail author
  • Animesh Mukherjee
Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)


In this chapter, we study the dynamics of the so-called naming game as an opinion formation model with a focus on how the presence of a set of rigid minorities can result in the emergence of a dominant opinion in the system. These rigid minorities are “speaker-only”, i.e., they only “speak” and never “listen” thus strongly affecting the course of a social agreement process. We show that for a moderate α (fraction of rigid minorities), the agreement dynamics results in an emergence of a dominant opinion. We extensively study the property of such dominant opinions and observe that the dominance is not the characteristic property of only the “speaker-only” opinions; other opinions under certain circumstances can also become dominant. However, with increasing α, the chances of a “speaker-only” opinion becoming dominant increases. We also find early invented opinions possess higher chances of becoming dominant. We embed this model on various static interaction topologies and real-world time-varying face-to-face interaction data. Importantly, for a reasonably static societal structure the presence of rigid minorities influences the emergence of a dominant opinion to a much larger extent than in case where the societal structure is very dynamic.


Naming Game Winning Probability Opinion Cluster Dominant Opinion Network Snapshot 
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. [Barabasi and Albert(1999)]
    Barabasi, A.L., Albert, R.: Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439), 509–512 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Baronchelli et al.(2007)Baronchelli, Dall’Asta, Barrat, and Loreto]
    Baronchelli, A., Dall’Asta, L., Barrat, A., Loreto, V.: Nonequilibrium phase transition in negotiation dynamics. Physical Review E 76(5), 051102 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. [Baronchelli et al.(2006)Baronchelli, Felici, Loreto, Caglioti, and Steels]
    Baronchelli, A., Felici, M., Loreto, V., Caglioti, E., Steels, L.: Sharp transition towards shared vocabularies in multi-agent systems. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2006(06) (2006)Google Scholar
  4. [Biswas and Sen(2009)]
    Biswas, S., Sen, P.: Model of binary opinion dynamics: Coarsening and effect of disorder. Phys. Rev. E 80(2), 027101 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. [Cattuto et al.(2007)Cattuto, Loreto, and Pietronero]
    Cattuto, C., Loreto, V., Pietronero, L.: Semiotic dynamics and collaborative tagging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(5), 1461–1464 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Costa, A., Colomé, A., Gómez, O., Sebastián-Gallés, N.S.: Another look at cross-language competition in bilingual speech production: Lexical and phonological factors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6(03), 167–179 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Galam(2010)]
    Galam, S.: Public debates driven by incomplete scientific data: The cases of evolution theory, global warming and h1n1 pandemic influenza. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 389, 3619–3631 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [Galam and Jacobs(2007)]
    Galam, S., Jacobs, F.: The role of inflexible minorities in the breaking of democratic opinion dynamics. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 381, 366–376 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [Golder and Huberman(2006)]
    Golder, S., Huberman, B.A.: The Structure of Collaborative Tagging Systems. Journal of Information Science 32(2), 198–208 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [Isella et al.(2011)Isella, Stehlé, Barrat, Cattuto, Pinton, and den Broeck]
    Isella, L., Stehlé, J., Barrat, A., Cattuto, C., Pinton, J., Van den Broeck, W.: What’s in a crowd? Analysis of face-to-face behavioral networks. Journal of Theoretical Biology 271(1), 166–180 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [Lu et al.(2009)Lu, Korniss, and Szymanski]
    Lu, Q., Korniss, G., Szymanski, B.K.: The Naming Game in social networks: community formation and consensus engineering. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination 4(2), 221–235 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [Maity et al.(2012)Maity, Manoj, and Mukherjee]
    Maity, S.K., Manoj, T.V., Mukherjee, A.: Opinion formation in time-varying social networks: The case of the naming game. Physical Review E 86(3), 036110 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. [MARIAN and SPIVEY(2003)]
    Marian, V., Spivey, M.: Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within- and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6(02), 97–115 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [Mobilia(2003)]
    Mobilia, M.: Does a Single Zealot Affect an Infinite Group of Voters? Physical Review Letters 91(2), 028701 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. [Mobilia et al.(2007)Mobilia, Petersen, and Redner]
    Mobilia, M., Petersen, A., Redner, S.: On the role of zealotry in the voter model. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2007(08), P08029 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. [Odlin(1989)]
    Odlin, T.: Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [Patriarca and Leppänen(2004)]
    Patriarca, M., Leppänen, T.: Modeling language competition. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 338(1-2) (2004); Proceedings of the conference A Nonlinear World: the Real World, 2nd International Conference on Frontier Science, pp. 296–299Google Scholar
  18. [Stauffer et al.(2007)Stauffer, Castelló, Eguíluz, and Miguel]
    Stauffer, D., Castelló, X., Eguíluz, V.M., Miguel, M.S.: Microscopic Abrams-Strogatz model of language competition. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 374(2), 835–842 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [Steels(1995)]
    Steels, L.: A self-organizing spatial vocabulary. Artificial Life 2(3), 319–332 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [Steels(1996)]
    Steels, L.: Self-organizing vocabularies. In: Langton, C.G., Shimohara, K. (eds.) Artificial Life V, Nara, Japan, pp. 179–184 (1996)Google Scholar
  21. [Steels(1999)]
    Steels, L.: The Talking Heads Experiment. Words and Meanings, vol. 1. Laboratorium, Antwerpen (1999)Google Scholar
  22. [Xie et al.(2012)Xie, Emenheiser, Kirby, Sreenivasan, Szymanski, and Korniss]
    Xie, J., Emenheiser, J., Kirby, M., Sreenivasan, S., Szymanski, B.K., Korniss, G.: Evolution of opinions on social networks in the presence of competing committed groups. PLoS ONE 7(3), 33215 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [Xie et al.(2011)Xie, Sreenivasan, Korniss, Zhang, Lim, and Szymanski]
    Xie, J., Sreenivasan, S., Korniss, G., Zhang, W., Lim, C., Szymanski, B.K.: Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities. Physical Review E 84(1), 011130 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. [Yildiz et al.(2011)Yildiz, Acemoglu, Ozdaglar, Saberi, and Scaglione]
    Yildiz, E., Acemoglu, D., Ozdaglar, A., Saberi, A., Scaglione, A.: Model of binary opinion dynamics: Coarsening and effect of disorder. SSRN eLibrary (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Computer Science and EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations