Have you ever wondered what leads to the spread of “fake news” and other misinformation in social media platforms? This study gives us an insight into the science of how this happens.
Social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter have changed the way we consume information, and also how information propagates through society.
Social media has given people the freedom and opportunity to express themselves to a wider audience. There are a lot of positives about social media, such as, it keeps us connected, and news travels at a rapid pace. But there is also a dark side to social media.
An echo chamber is an environment where like-minded individuals share information that only reinforces their existing beliefs, and has the potential for creating misinformation. Echo chambers could limit critical thinking and deepen polarization.
Polarization occurs when individuals or groups become more extreme in their beliefs, attitude, and behaviours. This could cause the spread of information and amplify harmful content which could lead to societal unrest.
This has caused an interest in modelling the dynamics of what is known as cognitive inertia. Cognitive inertia is the tendency of people to stick with existing beliefs or assumptions even when new information is presented to them and challenges them.
In this study, the authors Ms. Samana Pranesh and Prof. Sayan Gupta from The Uncertainty Lab, Department of Applied Mechanics & Biomedical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, Chennai, India (Prof. Sayan Gupta is also affiliated with the Complex Systems and Dynamics Group, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, Chennai, India), have used theories of nonlinear dynamics using an opinion dynamics model called an activity-driven model to explore cognitive inertia. They have explored the dynamics of opinion formation within a society prone to polarization, highlighting the role of cognitive inertia in these processes.
The model used in this study incorporates homophily factor, which is the tendency of the individuals to interact with people of similar opinions, and is able to model the conditions that lead to consensus, radicalization, and polarization. A graphical representation of states of polarization, radicalization, and consensus in a network of 1000 individuals is shown below.
Fig. 1. A schematic representation of (a) Polarization (b) Radicalization (c) Consensus; in a network of 1000 individuals. Colour of the nodes in the network represent the opinion of each individual on a given issue.
A network that is polarized consists of two distinct clusters representing the two opposite opinions on a given issue. Extreme opinions are represented by blue and red. During radicalization, opinions of the individuals are fully absorbed by one extreme. In the consensus phase, individuals adopt a neutral stance, reflecting no strong opinion on the issue.
It was found that when individuals exhibit positive cognitive inertia, they tend to reinforce their current beliefs, which leads to persistence of polarization. But when individuals exhibited negative cognitive inertia, they were more open to revisiting and reconsidering their prior views. This can trigger a shift towards consensus via supercritical pitchfork bifurcation.
The authors concluded that a society in which individuals are more receptive to diverse opinions is less likely to remain polarized and more capable of reaching consensus. Therefore, fostering an environment where people are encouraged to engage with differing perspectives can mitigate polarization and promote social cohesion.
Prof. Anirban Chakraborti, from the School of Computational & Integrative Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India, who is also a Founding member of the Centre for Complexity Economics, Applied Spirituality and Public Policy, Jindal School of Government and Public Policy, O. P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India, appreciated the work of the authors and stressed the importance of their work with the following comments: “Opinion dynamics has become a very interesting topic of study, especially with the rise of social media platforms. These platforms have reshaped how people consume and share information, fostering environments that often reinforce existing beliefs and create “echo chambers”. These echo chambers amplify “polarization”, especially during politically charged debates or societal events, and enable the rapid spread of “misinformation”. The present study based on activity-driven models have been instrumental in understanding these opinion dynamics, particularly the role of cognitive inertia— where individuals either cling to (positive inertia) or move away from (negative inertia) prior beliefs. Positive inertia reinforces polarization, while negative inertia promotes openness, facilitating a transition from polarization to consensus. Dr. Sayan Gupta’s studies reveal a “supercritical pitchfork bifurcation”, marking the transition from polarization to consensus. This type of interdisciplinary research based on simple chaotic dynamics can offer deep insights into mitigating societal divides that can have far-reaching repercussions.”
Article by Akshay Anantharaman
Click here for the original link to the paper
