Disagreement in a Naïve Model of Attitude Formation: Comparative Statics Results

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/economia/a.9112

Article Sidebar

PDF HTML (Español (España)) Lector Inteligente (Español (España)) ePub (Español (España))

Published: Jun 18, 2020
Issue: Vol. 23 No. 2 (2020)
Section Articles


Keywords: disagreement homophily average-based updating

Main Article Content

Authors

Isabel Melguizo
Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE)

Abstract

This paper further studies the persistence of disagreement in a model similar to Melguizo (2019), by relaxing two essential assumptions. First, attitudes are random variables, and second, individuals may be homophilous at different extents. Regarding the first extension, the finding is that disagreement persists with the highest probability across the attribute that exhibits the highest mean of the distribution of initial differences in average attitudes. Regarding the second one, the finding is that the magnitude of disagreement and the speed of convergence to it, increase with respect to the case in which individuals are homophilous to the same extent.

How to Cite
Melguizo, I. (2020). Disagreement in a Naïve Model of Attitude Formation: Comparative Statics Results. Revista Economía Del Rosario, 23(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/economia/a.9112
References

Apostol, T. M. (1977). Análisis Matemático. Barcelona: Revert´e.

DeGroot, M. H. (1974). Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(345), 118-121.

DeMarzo, P. M., Zwiebel, J., & Vayanos, D. (2003). Persuasion bias, social influence, and unidimensional opinions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 909-968.

Echenique, F., & Fryer, R. G. (2007). A measure of segregation based on social interactions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(2), 441-485.

Golub, B., & Jackson, M. O. (2010). Naïve learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2(1), 112-149.

Hegselmann, R., & Krause, U. (2002). Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(3), 1-33.

Leizarowitz, A. (1992). On infinite products of stochastic matrices. Linear algebra and its applications, 168, 189-219.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.

Melguizo, I. (2019). Homophily and the persistence of disagreement. The Economic Journal, 129(619), 1400-1424.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of general psychology, 2(2), 175-220.

Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Echo chambers on Facebook. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.

cfm?abstract_id=2795110

Sheldon, R. et al. (2002). A first course in probability. Pearson Education India.

Stroock, D. W. (2010). Probability theory: an analytic view. Cambridge University Press.

Zollo, F., Kralj Novak, P., del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Mozetiˇc, I., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2015). Emotional dynamics in the age of misinformation. PloS One, 10(9). Doi: https//:www.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138740

Query Statistics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Publcation metrics

780 59




 

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Los autores conservan los derechos de autor y garantizan a la revista el derecho de ser la primera publicación del trabajo al igual que licenciado bajo una Creative Commons Attribution License que permite a otros compartir el trabajo con un reconocimiento de la autoría del trabajo y la publicación inicial en esta revista.