Information Feedback and Mass Media Effects in Cultural Dynamics
Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation
vol. 10, no. 3 9
<https://www.jasss.org/10/3/9.html>
For information about citing this article, click here
Received: 11-Jan-2007 Accepted: 18-May-2007 Published: 30-Jun-2007
if people tend to become more alike in their beliefs, attitudes, and behavior when they interact, why do not all differences eventually disappear?
Figure 1: Diagrams representing two types of direct, endogenous mass media influences acting on the system. a) Global mass media. b) Local mass media |
(1) Select at random an agent i on the lattice (called active agent).
(2) Select the source of interaction . With probability set as an interaction with the mass media vector. Otherwise, choose agent at random among the four nearest neighbors of i on the network.
(3) Calculate the cultural overlap (number of shared features) . If , sites i and interact with probability . In case of interaction, choose randomly such that and set .
Here we use the definition of the Kronecker's delta function
(4) Update the mass media vector if required. Resume at (1).
Figure 2: Evolution of in a system subject to a global mass media message for different values of the probability , with fixed . Time is measured in number of events per site. System size . Left: ; (crosses); (squares); (diamonds); (circles). Right: ; (crosses); (squares); (circles); (diamonds). |
Figure 3: Asymptotic value of the fraction of cultural domains as a function of , for different values of the probability and for different types of mass media influences. (diamonds); (solid squares, direct global mass media); (empty squares, direct global mass media); (solid circles, direct local mass media); (empty circles, direct local mass media). |
Figure 4: Asymptotic cultural configurations for different values of the probability for a direct global mass media influence, for , , and . Top left: ; top right: ; bottom left: ; bottom right: |
Figure 5: Threshold boundaries vs. for corresponding to the global and mass media. Each line separates the region of cultural diversity (above the line, in grey) from the region of a global culture (below the line) for direct global (circles) and local (triangles) mass media influences. |
Figure 6:
Cultural configurations for different values of the probability
for different mass media influences in the multicultural region,
for , , and
. Left: no mass media ; center:
Global mass media with ; right: Local mass media with . (see Movie 1) |
(1) Select at random an agent i on the lattice (active agent).
(2) Select at random one agent among the four neighbors of i.
(3) Calculate the overlap . If , sites i and interact with probability . In case of interaction, choose randomly such that . If , then set ; otherwise with probability the state of agent i does not change and with probability set
(4) Update the global mass media vector if required. Resume at (1).
Figure 7: Diagram representing the filter model. |
Figure 8: Time evolution of the average fraction of cultural domains in the filter model for different values of the probability , with fixed . Time is measured in number of events per site. System size . Left: ; (crosses); (squares); (diamonds); (circles). Right: ; (crosses); (squares); (circles); (diamonds). |
Figure 9: Average fraction of cultural domains as a function of , for different values of the probability for the filter model. (circles); (squares); (triangles down); (diamonds); (triangles up); (stars); (plus signs). |
Figure 10: For and , there are different cultural states that can be assigned different colors as shown. |
Table 1: Key to formulae employed | |||||
1. | Number of shared features between agent i and agent j
|
||||
2. | The probability that the agent i interacts with the agent j
|
||||
3. | The total probability that the agent i interacts with the mass media
|
||||
4. | The overlap between agent i and the mass media messages
|
||||
5. | The average fraction of cultural domains
|
||||
6. | Definition of Kronecker's delta function | ||||
BHAVNANI R, (2003), Adaptive Agents, Political Institutions and Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 6, no 4, https://www.jasss.org/6/4/1.html.
CASTELLANO C, MARSILI M, and VESPIGNANI A, (2000), Nonequilibrium Phase Transition in a Model for Social Influence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, pp. 3536-3539.
CENTOLA D, GONZALEZ-AVELLA J C, EGUILUZ V M, and SAN MIGUEL M, (2006), Homophily, Cultural Drift and the Co-Evolution of Cultural Groups. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609213.
FLACHE A and MACY M,(2006), What sustains cultural diversity and what undermines it? Axelrod and beyond. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604201.
GONZALEZ-AVELLA J C, COSENZA M G, and TUCCI K, (2005), Nonequilibrium transition induced by mass media in a model for social influence. Phys. Rev. E, 72, 065102(R).
GONZALEZ-AVELLA J C, EGUILUZ V M, COSENZA M G, KLEMM K, HERRERA J L, and SAN MIGUEL M, (2006), Local versus global interactions in nonequilibrium transitions: A model of social dynamics. Phys. Rev. E 73, 046119.
GREIG J, (2002), The End of Geography? Globalization, Communications, and Culture in the International System. J. Conflict Res. 46, pp. 225-243.
KLEMM K, EGUILUZ V M, TORAL R, and SAN MIGUEL M, (2003), Global culture: A noise-induced transition in finite systems. Phys. Rev. E. 67, 045101(R).
KLEMM K, EGUILUZ V M, TORAL R, and SAN MIGUEL M, (2003), Role of dimensionality in Axelrod's model for the dissemination of culture. Physica A, 327, pp. 1-5.
KLEMM K, EGUILUZ V M , TORAL R, and SAN MIGUEL M, (2003), Nonequilibrium transition in complex networks: A model of social interaction. Phys. Rev. E. 67, pp. 026120.
KLEMM K, EGUILUZ V M , TORAL R, and SAN MIGUEL M, (2005), Globalization, polarization and cultural drift. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 29, pp 321-334.
LEYDESDORFF L, (2001), Technology and Culture: The Dissemination and the Potential 'Lock-in' of New Technologies. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 6(4)5, https://www.jasss.org/4/3/5.html.
MACY M W, KITTS J, FLACHE A and BERNARD S, (2003). Polarization in Dynamic Networks: A Hopfield Model of Emergent Structure. In Dynamic Social Network Modeling and Analysis. R. Breiger, K. Carley and P. Pattison (Eds.), National Academies Press (Washington, 2003), pp. 162-173.
SAN MIGUEL M, EGUILUZ V M, TORAL R, and KLEMM K, (2005), Binary and Multivariate Stochastic Models of Consensus Formation. Computing in Science & Engineering. 7, pp. 67-73.
SHIBANAI Y, YASUNO S, and ISHIGURO I, (2001), Effects of Global Information Feedback on Diversity: Extensions to Axelrod's Adaptative Culture Model. J. Conflict Res. 45, pp. 80-96.
Return to Contents of this issue
© Copyright Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, [2007]