nach oben

Journal of Logic, Language and Information

Erschienen in:

01.12.2016

Reflecting on Social Influence in Networks

verfasst von: Zoé Christoff, Jens Ulrik Hansen, Carlo Proietti

Erschienen in: Journal of Logic, Language and Information | Ausgabe 3-4/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

In many social contexts, social influence seems to be inescapable: the behavior of others influences us to modify ours, and vice-versa. However, social psychology is full of examples of phenomena where individuals experience a discrepancy between their public behavior and their private opinion. This raises two central questions. First, how does an individual reason about the behavior of others and their private opinions in situations of social influence? And second, what are the laws of the resulting information dynamics? In this paper, we address these questions by introducing a formal framework for representing reasoning about an individual’s private opinions and public behavior under the dynamics of social influence in social networks. Moreover, we dig deeper into the involved information dynamics by modeling how individuals can learn about each other based on this reasoning. This compels us to introduce a new formal notion of reflective social influence. Finally, we initialize the work on proof theory and automated reasoning for our framework by introducing a sound and complete tableaux system for a fragment of our logic. Furthermore, this constitutes the first tableau system for the “Facebook logic” of J. Seligman, F. Liu, and P. Girard.

Vorheriger Artikel AGM Contraction and Revision of Rules

Nächster Artikel Natural Deduction for Modal Logic of Judgment Aggregation

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Models for diffusion of innovations (Granovetter 1978) or of creation of micro-cultures Axelrod (1997) are two among many important examples of the power of social network models in explaining complex social phenomena.

In line with the tradition in modal and epistemic logic we may also refer to such states as (possible) worlds.

In other words, we will define knowledge and uncertainty in the traditional S5 way of epistemic logic.

To avoid circular definitions, the set \(\mathcal {L}\) should be forbidden to have precondition formulas involving \([\mathcal {L}]\) itself. Nevertheless, we can allow formulas of \(\mathcal {L}_\mathcal {KDL}\) in \(\mathcal {L}\) constructed at an “earlier stage” in a simultaneous inductive definition of learning modalities and the language \(\mathcal {L}_\mathcal {KDL}\).

Similar restrictions will be imposed in the definition of \(\mathsf {DT}\) below in Definition 7.

We use the standard abbreviations for \(\vee , \rightarrow \), and \(\leftrightarrow \). Moreover we will denote the dual of F by \(\langle F \rangle \) and the dual of K by \(\langle K \rangle \), in other words \(\langle F \rangle \varphi := \lnot F \lnot \varphi \) and \(\langle K \rangle \varphi := \lnot K\lnot \varphi \).

Similarly as for modalities \([\mathcal {L}]\) in Definition 4, the dynamic transformation \(\mathcal {D} = (\varPhi , \mathsf {post})\) should not contain precondition formulas in \(\varPhi \) involving \([\mathcal {D}]\) itself, but can contain formulas of \(\mathcal {L}_\mathcal {KDL}\) constructed on an “earlier stage” in a simultaneous inductive definition of dynamic transformations and the language \(\mathcal {L}_\mathcal {KDL}\). In other words, one should view Definitions 7 and 4 as one simultaneous recursive definition.

Note that our framework does not rely on the assumption that the network structure is common knowledge.

Modulo a translation of standard atomic propositions into our feature propositions for a countable set of properties taking only two values.

It should be mentioned, however, that Sano (2014) has very recently independently developed a labeled sequent system and an axiomatization for the Facebook logic. The labeled sequent system of Sano have not yet been fully published, thus it remains difficult to give a proper comparison with our tableau system. Still, the approaches seem to differ considerably. However, as noted by Fitting (2012) for modal logic, there is a correspondence between nested sequent systems and prefixed tableaux. Nevertheless, we leave this non-trivial comparison with Sano’s system for future work.

The symbols “\(\asymp \)” and “\(\sim \)” were also used to represent the network and epistemic accessibility in our semantics, but here we reuse them for accessibility formulas. Since the accessibility formulas are intended to specify the structure of the model constructed in the completeness proof this reuse seems natural.

Abelson, R. P. (1964). Mathematical models of the distribution of attitudes under controversy. In N. Frederiksen, & H. Gulliksen (Eds.), Contributions to mathematical psychology (pp. 142–160). New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

Acemoglu, D., & Ozdaglar, A. (2011). Opinion dynamics and learning in social networks. Dynamic Games and Applications, 1(1), 3–49. doi:10.1007/s13235-010-0004-1.CrossRef

Andersen, H. C. (1837). Kejserens nye klæder (the emperors new clothes). In Eventyr, fortalte for Børn. Tredie Hefte (Fairy Tales Told for Children. Third Collection), C. A. Reitzel, Copenhagen.

Areces, C., & ten Cate, B. (2007). Hybrid logics. In P. Blackburn, J. van Benthem, & F. Wolter (Eds.), Handbook of modal logic (pp. 821–868). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRef

Aucher, G., Balbiani, P., del Cerro, L. F., & Herzig, A. (2009). Global and local graph modifiers. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 231, 293–307. doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2009.02.042. Proceedings of the 5th workshop on methods for modalities (M4M5 2007)

Axelrod, R. (1997). Complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Balbiani, P., Ditmarsch, H. V., Herzig, A., & de Lima, T. (2010). Tableaux for public announcement logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 20(1), 55–76. doi:10.1093/logcom/exn060.CrossRef

Baltag, A., Christoff, Z., Hansen, J. U., & Smets, S. (2013). Logical models of informational cascades. In J. van Benthem & F. Lui (Eds.), Logic across the university: Foundations and applications, studies in logic (pp. 405–432). London: College Publications.

Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100(5), 992–1026.CrossRef

Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1998). Learning from the behavior of others: Conformity, fads, and informational cascades. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(3), 151–170.CrossRef

Bolander, T., & Blackburn, P. (2007). Termination for hybrid tableaus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 17(3), 517–554.CrossRef

Centola, D., Willer, R., & Macy, M. (2005). The Emperor’s dilemma. A computational model of self-enforcing norms. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 1009–1040.CrossRef

Christoff, Z., & Hansen, J. U. (2013). A two-tiered formalization of social influence. In H. Huang, D. Grossi, & O. Roy (Eds.), Logic, rationality and interaction, proceedings of the fourth international workshop (LORI 2013), Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 8196, pp. 68–81). Springer.

Christoff, Z., & Hansen, J. U. (2015). A logic for diffusion in social networks. Journal of Applied Logic, 13(1), 48–77. doi:10.1016/j.jal.2014.11.011.CrossRef

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

Easley, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2010). Networks, crowds, and markets: Reasoning about a highly connected world. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Fitting, M. (2012). Prefixed tableaus and nested sequents. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 163(3), 291–313. doi:10.1016/j.apal.2011.09.004.CrossRef

Granovetter, M. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 1420–1443.CrossRef

Halbesleben, J. R. B., Wheeler, A. R., & Buckley, M. R. (2007). Understanding pluralistic ignorance: Application and theory. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(1), 65–83.CrossRef

Jackson, M. O. (2010). Social and economic networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kennedy, J., & Eberhart, R. C. (2001). Swarm intelligence. San Francisco: Morgan Kauffmann.

Kooi, B., & Renne, B. (2011). Arrow update logic. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 4, 536–559. doi:10.1017/S1755020311000189.CrossRef

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1969). Bystander “Apathy”. American Scientist, 57(2), 244–268. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27828530.

Lehrer, K. (1976). When rational disagreement is impossible. Noûs, 10(3), 327–332.CrossRef

Liu, F., Seligman, J., & Girard, P. (2014). Logical dynamics of belief change in the community. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0432-3.

Mason, W. A., Conrey, F., & Smith, E. R. (2007). Situating social influence processes: Multidirectional flows of influence within social networks. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 279–300.CrossRef

O’Gorman, H. J. (1986). The discovery of pluralistic ignorance: An ironic lesson. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 22, 333–347.CrossRef

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2), 243–256.CrossRef

Rendsvig, R. K. (2014). Pluralistic ignorance in the bystander effect: Informational dynamics of unresponsive witnesses in situations calling for intervention. Synthese, 191(11), 2471–2498.CrossRef

Sano, K. (2014). Axiomatizing epistemic logic of friendship via tree-sequent calculus. Paper at Kanazawa workshop for epistemic logic and its dynamic extensions, Kanazawa, Japan 2014. http://www.jaist.ac.jp/~v-sano/jw2014/index.html.

Seligman, J., Liu, F., & Girard, P. (2011). Logic in the community. In M. Banerjee, & A. Seth (Eds.), Logic and its applications, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6521, pp. 178–188). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18026-2_15.

Seligman, J., Liu, F., & Girard, P. (2013). Knowledge, friendship and social announcements. In J. van Benthem & F. Liu (Eds.), Logic across the university: Foundations and applications: Proceedings of the Tsinghua logic conference, Beijing, 2013. College Publications.

van Benthem, J., & Liu, F. (2007). Dynamic logic of preference upgrade. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 17(2), 157–182.CrossRef

van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2008). Dynamic epistemic logic. Syntese library (Vol. 337). The Netherlands: Springer.

Westphal, J. D., & Bednar, M. K. (2005). Pluralistic ignorance in corporate boards and firms’ strategic persistence in response to low firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 262–298.

Zhen, L., & Seligman, J. (2011). A logical model of the dynamics of peer pressure. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 278(0), 275–288. doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2011.10.021, Proceedings of the 7th workshop on methods for modalities (M4M 2011) and the 4th workshop on logical aspects of multi-agent systems (LAMAS 2011).

Titel: Reflecting on Social Influence in Networks
verfasst von: Zoé Christoff
Jens Ulrik Hansen
Carlo Proietti
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2016
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Logic, Language and Information / Ausgabe 3-4/2016
Print ISSN: 0925-8531
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9583
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-016-9242-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3-4/2016

The Evolution of Compositionality in Signaling Games

AGM Contraction and Revision of Rules

Natural Deduction for Modal Logic of Judgment Aggregation

Compositional Signaling in a Complex World

Special Issue: Information Dynamics in Artificial Societies (IDAS@ESSLLI-14)

Premium Partner