Exploring the Dynamics of Group Opinion Bi-polarization Considering Assimilative and Repulsive Social Influences

Abstract

In recent years, the transition of public opinion from diversity to polarization — and the resulting social tensions — has attracted growing scholarly interest. Building on social judgment theory in social psychology, this study extends the classic threshold model by proposing a dual-threshold opinion dynamics framework. The model simultaneously incorporates assimilative and repulsive social influences from neighboring opinions within a network, where the strength of each influence is determined by the proportion of neighbors exerting that influence. Agent-based simulations reveal that the interplay between assimilative and repulsive forces generates complex — and at times counterintuitive — dynamics. Notably, increasing assimilative influence does not always reduce opinion divergence; on the contrary, when repulsive influence is weak, it can intensify polarization. Moreover, reducing the density of interpersonal connections can mitigate polarization under strong repulsive influence but fails to promote consensus. Interestingly, when the repulsion threshold is lowand the assimilation threshold is high, an initially polarized opinion distribution proves more effective in curbing bi-polarization than a uniformly random distribution. Although these effects are confined to specific regions of the parameter space, simulation results confirm that the observed patterns are robust across more realistic network structures.

Keywords

Opinion bi-polarization / opinion dynamics model / social influence / complex network / agent-based modeling

References

[1] AcemogluD, OzdaglarA. Opinion dynamics and learning in social networks. Dynamic Games and Applications, 2011, 1(1): 3-49.

[2] AndersonS P, CoateS. Market provision of broadcasting: A welfare analysis. Review of Economic Studies, 2005, 72(4): 947-972.

[3] AndersonS P, de PalmaA. The logit as a model of product differentiation. Oxford Economic Papers, 1992, 44(1): 51-67.

[4] AndersonS, GabszewiczJ. The media and advertising: A tale of two-sided markets. Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, 2006, 1: 567-614.

[5] BailC A, ArgyleL P, BrownT W, BumpusJ P, ChenH, HunzakerM F, VolfovskyA. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2018, 115(37): 9216-9221.

[6] BanischS, LimaR, AraújoT. Agent based models and opinion dynamics as Markov chains. Social Networks, 2012, 34(4): 549-561.

[7] Barrera LemarchandF, SemeshenkoV, NavajasJ, BalenzuelaP. Polarizing crowds: Consensus and bipolarization in a persuasive arguments model. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 2020, 306063141.

[8] BassettD S, BullmoreE T. Small-world brain networks revisited. The Neuroscientist, 2017, 23(5): 499-516.

[9] BernardesA T, StaufferD, KertészJ. Election results and the Sznajd model on Barabasi network. The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 2002, 25: 123-127.

[10] ChenG, SuW, MeiW, BulloF. Convergence properties of the heterogeneous Deffuant-Weisbuch model. Automatica, 2020, 114108825.

[11] ChenT, RongJ, YangJ, CongG, LiG. Combining public opinion dissemination with polarization process considering individual heterogeneity. Healthcare, 2021, 92176.

[12] De GrootJ I, StegL. Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. The Journal of Social Psychology, 2009, 149(4): 425-449.

[13] Del VicarioM, ZolloF, CaldarelliG, ScalaA, QuattrociocchiW. Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: The Brexit debate. Social Networks, 2017, 50: 6-16.

[14] DruckmanJ N, PetersonE, SlothuusR. How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 2013, 107(1): 57-79.

[15] EtesamiS R, BasarT. Game-theoretic analysis of the Hegselmann-Krause model for opinion dynamics in finite dimensions. IEEE Transactions onAutomatic Control, 2015, 60(7): 1886-1897.

[16] FlacheA. About renegades and outgroup haters: Modeling the link between social influence and intergroup attitudes. Advances in Complex Systems, 2018, 211850017.

[17] FlacheA, MacyM W. Small worlds and cultural polarization. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2011, 35: 146-176.

[18] FlacheA, MäsM, FelicianiT, Chattoe-BrownE, DeffuantG, HuetS, LorenzJ. Models of social influence: Towards the next frontiers. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 2017, 2042.

[19] FlaxmanS, GoelS, RaoJ M. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 2016, 80(S1): 298-320.

[20] FriedkinN E, JohnsenE C. Social influence and opinions. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1990, 15(3–4): 193-206.

[21] HorstmeyerL, KuehnC. Adaptive voter model on simplicial complexes. Physical Review E, 2020, 1012022305.

[22] JagerW, AmblardF. Uniformity, bi-polarization and pluriformity captured as generic stylized behavior with an agent-based simulation model of attitude change. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 2005, 10: 295-303.

[23] Keijzer M A, Mäs M (2022). The complex link between filter bubbles and opinion polarization. Data Science 5(2): 139–166.

[24] KlemmK, EguíluzV M, ToralR, San MiguelM. Role of dimensionality in Axelrod’s model for the dissemination of culture. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 2003, 327(1–2): 1-5.

[25] KouG, ZhaoY, PengY, ShiY. Multi-level opinion dynamics under bounded confidence. PLoS ONE, 2012, 79e43507.

[26] KrapivskyP L, RednerS. Dynamics of majority rule in two-state interacting spin systems. Physical Review Letters, 2003, 9023238701.

[27] LeeJ K, ChoiJ, KimC, KimY. Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication, 2014, 64(4): 702-722.

[28] LevinsenK, YndigegnC. Political discussions with family and friends: Exploring the impact of political distance. The Sociological Review, 2015, 63: 72-91.

[29] LiL, FanY, ZengA, DiZ. Binary opinion dynamics on signed networks based on Ising model. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 2019, 525: 433-442.

[30] LiZ P, TangX. Polarization and non-positive social influence: A Hopfield model of emergent structure. International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science, 2012, 3(3): 15-25.

[31] LiZ P, TangX J. Exogenous covariate and nonpositive social influence promote group polarization. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 2013, 16(3): 73-81

[32] LiuS, MaesM, XiaH, FlacheA. When intuition fails: The complex effects of assimilative and repulsive influence on opinion polarization. Advances in Complex Systems, 2022, 25082250011.

[33] LorenzJ. Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence: A survey. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 2007, 18(12): 1819-1838.

[34] LuoY, LiY, SunC, ChengC. Adapted Deffuant-Weisbuch model with implicit and explicit opinions. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 2022, 596127095.

[35] MacCarronP, MaherP J, FennellS, BurkeK, GleesonJ P, DurrheimK, QuayleM. Agreement threshold on Axelrod’s model of cultural dissemination. PLoS One, 2020, 156e0233995.

[36] MäsM, FlacheA. Differentiation without distancing. Explaining bi-polarization of opinions without negative influence. PloS One, 2013, 811e74516.

[37] MuslimR, KholiliM J, NugrahaA R T. Opinion dynamics involving contrarian and independence behaviors based on the Sznajd model with two-two and three-one agent interactions. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 2022, 439133379.

[38] NechushtaiE, LewisS C. What kind of news gatekeepers do we want machines to be? Filter bubbles, fragmentation, and the normative dimensions of algorithmic recommendations. Computers in Human Behavior, 2019, 90: 298-307.

[39] PariserEThe Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think, 2011, USA. Penguin.

[40] ProskurnikovA V, MatveevA S, CaoM. Opinion dynamics in social networks with hostile camps: Consensus vs. polarization. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2015, 61(6): 1524-1536.

[41] RainerH, KrauseU. Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 2002, 532

[42] RhodesS C. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and fake news: How social media conditions individuals to be less critical of political misinformation. Political Communication, 2022, 39(1): 1-22.

[43] RobisonJ, MullinixK J. Elite polarization and public opinion: How polarization is communicated and its effects. Political Communication, 2016, 33(2): 261-282.

[44] SasaharaK, ChenW, PengH, CiampagliaG L, FlamminiA, MenczerF. Social influence and unfollowing accelerate the emergence of echo chambers. Journal of Computational Social Science, 2021, 4(1): 381-402.

[45] SchweitzerF, KrivachyT, GarciaD. An agent-based model of opinion polarization driven by emotions. Complexity, 2020, 2020: 1-11.

[46] ShangY. An agent based model for opinion dynamics with random confidence threshold. Communications inNonlinear Science andNumerical Simulation, 2014, 19(10): 3766-3777.

[47] SherifMThe Psychology of Social Norms, 1936, USA. Harper & Brothers.

[48] SoodV, RednerS. Voter model on heterogeneous graphs. Physical Review Letters, 2005, 9417178701.

[49] SpohrD. Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 2017, 34(3): 150-160.

[50] TakácsK, FlacheA, MäsM. Discrepancy and disliking do not induce negative opinion shifts. PloS One, 2016, 116e0157948.

[51] WeronT, SzwabinskiJ. Opinion evolution in divided community. Entropy, 2022, 242185.

[52] World Economic ForumThe global risk report 2024, 2023, Switzerland. World Economic Forum.

[53] XiaH, WangH, XuanZ. Opinion dynamics: A multidisciplinary review and perspective on future research. International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science, 2011, 2(4): 72-91.

[54] ZhaQ, KouG, ZhangH, LiangH, ChenX, LiC C, DongY. Opinion dynamics in finance and business: A literature review and research opportunities. Financial Innovation, 2020, 6: 1-22.

[55] ZhaoY, XuM, DongY, PengY. Fuzzy inference based Hegselmann-Krause opinion dynamics for group decision-making under ambiguity. Information Processing and Management, 2021, 585102671.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Systems Engineering Society of China and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

Just Accepted

This article has successfully passed peer review and final editorial review, and will soon enter typesetting, proofreading and other publishing processes. The currently displayed version is the accepted final manuscript. The officially published version will be updated with format, DOI and citation information upon launch. We recommend that you pay attention to subsequent journal notifications and preferentially cite the officially published version. Thank you for your support and cooperation.