Chapitre 28. La complexité d’un modèle simplifié d’interactions sociales : le modèle Léviathan
Pages 749 à 778
Citer ce chapitre
- DEFFUANT, Guillaume,
- HUET, Sylvie
- et CARLETTI, Timoteo,
- VARENNE, Franck
- et SILBERSTEIN, Marc,
- Deffuant, Guillaume.,
- et al.
- Deffuant, G.,
- Huet, S.
- et Carletti, T.
- F. Varenne
- et M. Silberstein
Citer ce chapitre
- Deffuant, G.,
- Huet, S.
- et Carletti, T.
- F. Varenne
- et M. Silberstein
- Deffuant, Guillaume.,
- et al.
- DEFFUANT, Guillaume,
- HUET, Sylvie
- et CARLETTI, Timoteo,
- VARENNE, Franck
- et SILBERSTEIN, Marc,
Notes
-
[1]
Thomas C. Schelling, “Dynamic Models of Segregation”, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 1971, p. 143-186.
-
[2]
Laetitia Gauvin et al., “Phase diagram of a Schelling segregation model”, European Physical Journal B, 70, 2009, p. 293-304 @.
-
[3]
Serge Galam, “Sociophysics : a review of Galam models”, International Journal of Modern Physics C, 19, 2008, p. 409-440 @ ; Katarzyna Sznadj-Weron, “Sznajd model and its applications”, Acta Physica Polonica B, 36(8), 2005 @.
-
[4]
Guillaume Deffuant et al., “Mixing beliefs among interacting agents”, Advances in Complex Systems, 3(4), 2000, p. 87-98 @ ; Santo Fortunato, “Universality of the threshold for complete consensus for the opinion dynamics of Deffuant et al.”, International Journal of Modern Physics C, 15, 2004, p. 1301-1307 @ ; Sylvie Huet et al., “A rejection mechanism in 2d bounded confidence provides more conformity”, Advances in Complex Systems, 11(4), 2008, p. 529-549 @ ; Sylvie Huet & Guillaume Deffuant, “Openness leads to opinion stability and narrowness to volatility”, Advances in Complex Systems, 13(3), 2010, p. 405-423 @ ; Diemo Urbig et al., “Opinion dynamics : The effect of number of peers met at once”, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 11(2)(3), 2008 @ ; Jan Lorenz, “Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence : a survey”, International Journal of Modern Physics C, 18, 2007, p. 1819-1838 @ ; Floriana Gargiulo & Sylvie Huet, “Opinion dynamics in a group-based society”, EPL, 91(5), 2010, p. 2-6 @.
-
[5]
Guillaume Deffuant, “Comparing extremism propagation patterns in continuous opinion models”, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 9(3), 2006, p. 1-24 @.
-
[6]
Franco Bagnoli et al., “Dynamical affinity in opinion dynamics modeling”, Phys. Rev. E, 76, 2007 @ ; Timoteo Carletti et al., “Emerging structures in social networks guided by opinions’ exchanges”, Advances in Complex Systems, 14(1), 2011 @.
-
[7]
Thomas Hobbes, Léviathan, ou Traité de la matière, de la forme et du pouvoir d’une république ecclésiastique et civile, 1651 @. (Ndé.)
-
[8]
Steven Fein & Steven J. Spencer, “Prejudice as self-image maintenance : Affirming the self through derogating others”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 1997, p. 31-44 @ ; Mark Leary et al., “Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 2006, p. 111-132 @ ; Katherine Buckley et al., “Reactions to acceptance and rejection : Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 2004, p. 14-28 @ ; Sanjay Srivastava & Jennifer Beer, “How self-evaluations relate to being liked by others : Integrating sociometer and attachment perspectives”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 2005, p. 966-977 @ ; Yannick Stephan & Christophe Maiano, “On the social nature of global self-esteem : A replication study”, The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(5), 2007, p. 573-575 ; Joanne V. Wood & Amanda L. Forest, “Seeking pleasure and avoiding pain in interpersonal 26 relationships”, in Mark D. Alicke & Constantine Sedikides (eds.), Handbook of Self-Enhancement and Self-Protection, New York, The Guilford Press, 2011, p. 258-278.
-
[9]
Guillaume Deffuant et al., “The Leviathan model : Absolute dominance, general distrust, small worlds and other patterns emerging from combining vanity with opinion propagation”, à paraître dans JASSS, 16(1), 5, 2013 @.
-
[10]
Un système est ergodique quand s’y manifestent des processus aléatoires tels que l’observation en bloc à un instant donné et moyennée sur cet instant d’un grand nombre d’instances de ces processus est équivalente à l’observation moyennée d’un seul processus isolé mais effectuée sur un grand laps de temps. Parfois, on résume grossièrement ces caractéristiques en disant que la moyenne dans l’espace de l’ensemble de ces processus est égale à leur moyenne dans le temps. (Ndé.)
-
[11]
Deffuant et al., op. cit., 2012.
-
[12]
René Girard, La Violence et le sacré, Grasset, 1972 ; Le Bouc émissaire, Grasset, 1982.
-
[13]
Vera Hoorens, “Self-enhancement and superiority biases in social comparison”, European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1993, p. 113-139 @.
-
[14]
Mary Uhl-Bien, “Relational leadership theory : Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing”, The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 2006, p. 654-676 ; Michael Hogg & Daan van Knippenberg, “Social identity and leadership processes in groups”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 2003, p. 1-52 @.
Nous décrivons un modèle de dynamique d’opinions dans lequel les agents se rencontrent deux à deux de manière aléatoire et font évoluer les opinions qu’ils ont les uns des autres par des mécanismes de vanité et de propagation. Les simulations révèlent une grande richesse de comportements du modèle lorsque les paramètres varient. Nous avons identifié cinq types de dynamiques : égalité, élite, crise, hiérarchie, domination. Nous étudions l’apparition de ces types de dynamiques lorsque les paramètres du modèle varient et nous en proposons des explications théoriques partielles. Enfin, nous discutons l’intérêt de cette approche dans une perspective plus large des sciences sociales.
We propose an opinion dynamics model that combines processes of vanity and opinion propagation. The interactions take place between randomly chosen pairs. During an interaction, the agents propagate their opinions about themselves and about other people they know. Moreover, each individual is subject to vanity: if her interlocutor seems to value her highly, then she increases her opinion about this interlocutor. On the contrary she tends to decrease her opinion about those who seem to undervalue her. The combination of these dynamics with the hypothesis that the opinion propagation is more efficient when coming from highly valued individuals, leads to different patterns when varying the parameters. For instance, for some parameters the positive opinion links between individuals generate a small world network. In one of the patterns, absolute dominance of one agent alternates with a state of generalised distrust, where all agents have a very low opinion of all the others (including themselves). We provide some explanations of the mechanisms behind these emergent behaviors and finally propose a discussion about their interest.
Date de mise en ligne : 01/06/2022
Ce chapitre est en accès conditionnel
Acheter cet ouvrage
24,00 €
Acheter ce chapitre
5,00 €