About renegades and outgroup-hatersodcd2017.user.jacobs-university.de/wp-content/uploads/... · 2017. 7. 13. · • Zigora, T., Stark, T. H., Flache, A. In progress. The Seeds of

About renegades and outgroup-haters: Modelling the link between

social influence and intergroup attitudes

Andreas FlachePresentation @ ODCD 2017:

Interdisciplinary Workshop on Opinion Dynamics and Collective Decision 2017

Jacobs University Bremen, Germany

July 5-7, 2017

About renegades and outgroup haters: Flache - ODCD 2017

Changing attitudes towards Muslims in the Netherlands

Do you generally think positively or negatively about muslims in the Netherlands?

TNS Nipo opinion panel

Representative random sample N=1089 TNS Nipo. De Beer & de Kraker, 2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

20102014

(very) positive

neutral or no opinion

(very) negative

% respondentsanswering …

2

year


Changing attitudes about political in-/outgroups in U.S.

Data Pew Research Center (2014)

3

Source: Gentzkow (2016). Polarization in 2016. Stanford University


• Homophily• More likely to interact with

ingroup members

• More open to influence from ingroup members• e.g. attraction paradigm,

symbolic interactionism

• “ingroup favoritism” (trust, confidence)

Theory / empiry

Macy Kitts Flache Benard 2003; Salzarulo 2006; Flache & Mäs 2008; Huet & Deffuant 2010;Mäs & Flache ea 2013; Feliciani ea 2017

Individual agents differ in “fixed / demographic” traits

Similar agents interact / influence each other more than dissimilar ones.

“Fixed” intergroup attitudes tend to foster intergroup dissensus / polarization

Models

Intergroup attitudes affect social influence

4


• Contact theory• Extended contact• Ethnic threat• Research on social influence

among adolescents in general

• Intergroup attitudes in particular only recently:• Van Zalk ea.• Zigora, Stark & Flache (in progress)

Theory / empiry

• van Zalk, M. H. W., Kerr, M., Kerr, M., van Zalk, N., & Stattin, H. (2013). Xenophobia and tolerance toward immigrants in adolescence: cross-influence processes within friendships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(4), 627–639

• Zigora, T., Stark, T. H., Flache, A. In progress. The Seeds of Change among Adolescents: How do Intergroup Attitudes spread within Social Networks ?

All models of attitude / opinion dynamics:

The attitude / opinion that is socially influenced could also be an intergroup attitude

But …

Models

Intergroup attitudes are socially influenced

5


The missing link?

6

Intergroup attitudes

Process and outcome of opinion dynamics

We have models for this



… and models for that


The missing link?

7



But no models for this


Why should we care?

Social influence on intergroup attitudes mayimprove intergroup attitudesReduced risk of intergroup polarization also on

other issues

Social influence on intergroup attitudes may (first) foster intergroup polarization in intergroupattitudesIncreasing risk of intergroup polarization also on

other issues

8


Towards an integrated model

Core assumptions

If two individuals interact, they modify theirintergroup attitude either towards or away from theintergroup attitude of the other.

Direction and magnitude of change depend on “discrepancy” with other.

→ which – in turn – depends on intergroup attitude

9


Towards an integrated model

10

• Positive influence on intergroup attitude

• Negative influence on intergroup attitude

Small discrepancy attraction / assimilation⇒

Large discrepancy repulsion / distancing⇒

Conditions: discrepancy (aka influence weight) depends on:

opinion disagreement (e.g. about the attitude towards group X)whether actors belong to same group or not (“fixed xenophobia”)attitude towards the group to which “the other” belongs:this attitude is one of the opinions influenced: this is the new element

e.g. Macy ea 2003; Jager & Amblard, Flache & Mäs 2008 …


��+1 = �� + � �� − ��

�� +1 = �� + � �� − ��

A simple version, more formally

11

› We have two groups, group Zero and group One.

› One opinion / attitude o: attitude towards group One.

› In one time step, select agents i and j randomly to interact*.

› If they interact:

μ scales rate of change, μ≤ 0.5, to assure opinions of i and j don’t cross.

› The weights w represent “discrepancy” and affect direction and magnitude of influence

*Deffuant BC interaction rule

1 1w

0 1o


“Raw” discrepancy i towards j:

�� = �� − �� + �� − �� + �� 1 − �� + (1 − ��)��

��+�� + �� = 1, > 0.

��= impact of opinion disagreement on discrepancy

��= impact of “demographic” difference (�� , �� {0,1} group) on discrepancy

��= impact of attitude towards group of j on discrepancy

Effect of opinion towards group 1 on raw discrepancy:

Example:

attitude towardsgroup 1

Modelling subjective discrepancy

12

�� = �

�� − �� =0.5�� = 0

�� = 1�� =

��

�� =��

�� =��


“Raw” discrepancy i towards j :

�� = �� − �� + �� − �� + �� 1 − �� + (1 − ��)��

��+�� + �� = 1, > 0.

��= impact of disagreement on discrepancy

��= impact of “demographic” difference, “fixed xenophobia” (�� , �� {0,1} group)



Example:

Modelling subjective discrepancy (2)

13

�� = �

�� − �� =0.5�� = 0

�� = 1�� =

��

� �.�

�� =��

�� =�� .�


“Raw” discrepancy i towards j :

�� = �� − �� + �� − �� + �� 1 − �� + (1 − ��)��

��+�� + �� = 1, > 0.

��= impact of disagreement on discrepancy

��= impact of “demographic” difference, “fixed xenophobia” (�� , �� {0,1} group)



Example:

Modelling subjective discrepancy (3)

14

�� = �

�� − �� =0.5�� = 0

�� = 1�� =

��

� �.�

�� =��

�� =�� .�


Discrepancy d into influence weight wweight function adopted from Mäs, Flache, Kitts, 2014

Influence weight

i is group One

�� =��

�� = 0

�� =��

�� =��

�� =��

�� = �

j is group 0 (outgroup)

j is group 1 (ingroup)


So what do we assume?

• More positive opinion about outgroup

→more open to influence from outgroup

→less open to influence from ingroup

• If outgroup attitude is important and positive

→ possible to be more open to influence fromoutgroup than from ingroup

16


Experiment 1:

“Fixed xenophobia” vs influenced outgroup attitude

Scenario N=100, (g0:50/g1:50)

Initial “ingroup favoritism”: Experiment:

17

�� = 0.4�� = �.�� = �.�

�� = 0.4�� = �.�� = �.�

Distribution initial opinion about group 1(two symmetric beta distributions)


Scenario N=100, (g0:50/g1:50). Typical runs.

Experiment:

18

Intergrouppolarization

Consensus

�� = 0.4�� = �.�� = �.�

�� = 0.4�� =.�

�� = �.�

Experiment 1:



Scenario N=100, (g0:50/g1:50). 100 runs per cond.

Full experiment:

19

�� = 0.4�� = �.�

�� = �

�� = 0.4�� = �

�� = �.�

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6betaA

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Distance group means:

Signed distance 1 0

Absolute distance

g1-g0

Intergrouppolarization

Consensus

Distribution distancebetween groups in final round

Experiment 1:



Why?

• Initial differences between groups are moderate

With “mainly fixed xenophobia” even that is enoughfor most agents to be negatively influenced by most outgroup members.

With “mainly socially influenced” intergroup attitude only agents who think very negatively of outgroup(“outgroup haters”) are negatively influenced bymost outgroup members. But they are the minority.

20


What if there are more “renegades”?

21

Can renegades serve as “linkage” between groupsand prevent intergroup polarization?


What if there are more “renegades”?

Renegade = “hates ingroup, loves outgroup”

“Usually, people have a tendency for ingroup bias, that is, they prefer their own group over other groups (e.g. Social Identity Theory)

Sometimes, however, people have a strong dislike for their own group, e.g., because these groups are stigmatized, … because … an ingroup violates important personal moral standards … labelled … "ingroup hate", "outgroup favoritism", or "disidentification".Becker, J. C., & Tausch, N. (2014). When group memberships are negative: The concept, measurement, and behavioral implications of psychological disidentification. Self andIdentity, 13(3), 294–321.

22

Can renegades serve as “linkage” between groupsand prevent intergroup polarization?


Experiment 2: add renegades(make tails of initial distribution longer)

Scenario N=100, (g0:50/g1:50)

Increase initial “ingroup favoritism”:

23

�� = 0.4�� = 0.2�� = 0.4


Experiment 3: add some “extra renegades”

Scenario N=100, (g0:50/g1:50)

“Rewire” per group 10 from “outgroup hater” to

“renegade”

24

�� = 0.4�� = 0.2�� = 0.4


Experiment 4: push it to the extreme

Scenario N=100, (g0:50/g1:50)

initially uniformly distributed intergroup attitudes

(50% “renegades”)

25

�� = 0.4�� = 0.2�� = 0.4

“Regular”intergroup polarization

“Reversed”intergroup polarization


0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0betaA

1.0

0.5

0.5

1.0

How does effect of “renegades” change if we gradually increase impact of intergroup attitude?

Scenario N=100, (g0:50/g1:50). Initial uniform, 100 runs / c

Full experiment:

26

�� = 1/3�� = 1/3�� = 1/3

�� = 0�� = 0�� = 1

g1-g0

Reversedintergroup polarization

Consensus

Distribution distancebetween groups in final round

Distance group means:

Signed distance 1 0

Absolute distance


Do renegades bridge groups?

Tentative answer based on this model: NO

Instead, renegades can foster “reversed” intergroup polarization.

Does this make sense?

27


Tentative conclusions about this model & what’s next?

• Socially influenced intergroup attitudes change dynamics

→ can foster intergroup polarization jointly with xenophobia

• “Renegades” do not bridge groups. Instead:

→ they switch sides, or they foster intergroup polarization

Some things to do next:

- Compare effects of negative influence to BC

- Would you really totally give up your ingroup favoritism underpressure from renegades?

Introduce some effect of initial position (Friedkin)

- Interplay intergroup attitudes and other attitudes?

28


Tentative conclusions about this model & what’s next?

• Socially influenced intergroup attitudes change dynamics

→ can foster intergroup polarization jointly with xenophobia

• “Renegades” do not bridge groups. Instead:

→ they switch sides, or they foster intergroup polarization

Some things to do next:

- Compare effects of negative influence to BC

- Would you really totally give up your ingroup favoritism underpressure from renegades?

Introduce some effect of initial position (Friedkin)

- Interplay intergroup attitudes and other attitudes?

29

Thus: it’s complex … but alsointriuging … to be continuedThank you for your attention


• Flache, Mäs, Feliciani, Chattoe-Brown, Deffuant, Huet, Lorenz. Forthcoming. Models of Social influence: towards the next frontiers. JASSS.

• Feliciani, Flache & Tolsma. 2017. How, When and Where Can Spatial Segregation Induce Opinion Polarization? Two Competing Models. JASSS. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/20/2/6.html

• Leszczensky, Flache, Stark, & Munniksma. 2017. The Relation between Ethnic Classroom Composition and Adolescents' Ethnic Pride.” GPIR. doi: 10.1177/1368430217691363.

• Takács, Flache, & Mäs. 2016. Discrepancy and Disliking Do Not Induce Negative Opinion Shifts. PLoS ONE 11(6): e0157948. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157948.

• Munniksma, Verkuyten, Flache, Stark & Veenstra, 2015. Friendships and outgroup attitudes among ethnic minority youth. IJIR, 44 , 88-99.

• Stark, Mäs & Flache, 2015. Liking and disliking minority-group classmates. SSR 50:164-176.

• Mäs & Flache. 2013. Differentiation without Distancing. Explaining Bi-Polarization of Opinions without Negative Influence. PLoS ONE 8(11): e74516.

• Munniksma, Stark, Verkuyten, Flache & Veenstra. 2013. Extended intergroup friendships within social settings. GPIB. 16(6) 752–770.

• Stark, Flache & Veenstra 2013. Generalization of positive and negative attitudes towards individuals to outgroup attitudes. PSPB 39: 608-622.

• Mäs, Flache, Takács & Jehn 2013. In the short term we divide, in the long term we unite: Organization Science24. 3: 716–736.

• Stark & Flache, 2012. The Double Edge of Common Interest. SoE 85.2:179-199.

• Flache & Macy, 2011. Local Convergence and Global Diversity. JCR 55.6: 968 - 993.

• Flache & Macy 2011. Small Worlds and Cultural Polarization. JMS 35.1: 146-176.

• Mäs, Flache & Helbing, 2010. Individualization as Driving Force of Clustering Phenomena in Humans. PLoSComputational Biology 6(10): e1000959.

• Flache & Mäs 2008. How to get the timing right? CMOT 14.1:23-51.

• Flache & Mäs 2008. Why do faultlines matter? SimPat 16.2: 175-191.30

(Some) related published work:

[email protected]://flache.gmw.rug.nl/

Documents

About renegades and outgroup-hatersodcd2017.user.jacobs-university.de/wp-content/uploads/... · 2017. 7. 13. · • Zigora, T., Stark, T. H., Flache, A. In progress. The Seeds of