Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Making

<p>A dyadic interaction between agents <svg height="8.8423pt" id="M416" style="vertical-align:-0.2064009pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -8.6359 3.66193 8.8423" width="3.66193pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M244 607C244 633 228 655 200 655C166 655 146 618 146 594C146 564 166 546 191 546C221 546 244 574 244 607ZM222 91L209 114C184 94 148 66 133 66C127 66 124 73 130 96L201 370C213 416 211 448 191 448C162 448 88 407 29 352L42 328C73 354 104 371 114 371C120 371 119 365 115 345L53 92C32 5 45 -12 68 -12C103 -12 186 50 222 91Z"></path></g></svg> and <svg height="12.0653pt" id="M417" style="vertical-align:-3.4294pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -8.6359 5.61923 12.0653" width="5.61923pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M394 607C394 634 378 655 350 655C315 655 294 620 294 594C294 564 314 546 339 546C372 546 394 574 394 607ZM360 349C373 414 374 448 351 448C321 448 249 404 183 338L197 313C223 336 265 367 276 367C285 367 283 355 275 313C241 129 220 23 189 -102C175 -158 153 -197 124 -197C106 -197 85 -187 70 -177C64 -173 51 -177 44 -183C34 -193 23 -209 23 -228C23 -244 46 -261 67 -261C86 -261 127 -245 181 -197C237 -147 279 -52 303 66L360 349Z"></path></g></svg> as expressed in (<a href="https://static.hindawi.com/articles/complexity/volume-2019/3758159/figures/#EEq3">5</a>). Agent <svg height="8.8423pt" id="M418" style="vertical-align:-0.2064009pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -8.6359 3.66193 8.8423" width="3.66193pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M244 607C244 633 228 655 200 655C166 655 146 618 146 594C146 564 166 546 191 546C221 546 244 574 244 607ZM222 91L209 114C184 94 148 66 133 66C127 66 124 73 130 96L201 370C213 416 211 448 191 448C162 448 88 407 29 352L42 328C73 354 104 371 114 371C120 371 119 365 115 345L53 92C32 5 45 -12 68 -12C103 -12 186 50 222 91Z"></path></g></svg>’s opinion falls within agent <svg height="12.0653pt" id="M419" style="vertical-align:-3.4294pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -8.6359 5.61923 12.0653" width="5.61923pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M394 607C394 634 378 655 350 655C315 655 294 620 294 594C294 564 314 546 339 546C372 546 394 574 394 607ZM360 349C373 414 374 448 351 448C321 448 249 404 183 338L197 313C223 336 265 367 276 367C285 367 283 355 275 313C241 129 220 23 189 -102C175 -158 153 -197 124 -197C106 -197 85 -187 70 -177C64 -173 51 -177 44 -183C34 -193 23 -209 23 -228C23 -244 46 -261 67 -261C86 -261 127 -245 181 -197C237 -147 279 -52 303 66L360 349Z"></path></g></svg>’s latitude of noncommitment and conversely. Neither agent affects the opinion of the other.</p>

Complexity

fig6

Figure 6

Figure 6: Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Making 