4.6 Article

Vacillating about media bias: Changing one's mind intermittently within a network of political allies and opponents

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2022.127829

Keywords

Antagonistic interaction; Bayesian inference; Media bias; Opinion dynamics; Opinion stability

Funding

  1. University of Melbourne Science Graduate Scholarship-2020, Australia
  2. Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery [DP170103625]
  3. ARC, Australia Discovery Project [CE170100004]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article explores a long-term behavior known as intermittency, where individuals cycle between stable and turbulent beliefs. Through simulations, it is found that different types of network structures lead to different types of intermittency, and the probability density functions of dwell times also vary. Therefore, the underlying network structure can be inferred by observing the dwell times of learners.
One form of long-term behavior revealed by opinion dynamics simulations is intermit-tency, where an individual cycles between eras of stable, constant beliefs and turbulent, fluctuating beliefs, for example when inferring the political bias of a media organization. We explore this phenomenon by building an idealized network of Bayesian learners, who infer the bias of a coin from observations of coin tosses and peer pressure from political allies and opponents. Numerical simulations reveal that three types of network structure lead to three different types of intermittency, which are caused by agents locking out opponents from sure beliefs in specific ways. The probability density functions of the dwell times, over which the learners sustain stable or turbulent beliefs, differ across the three types of intermittency. Hence, one can observe the dwell times of a learner to infer the underlying network structure, at least in principle.(C) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available