Abstract
This multi-level model of opinion formation considers that attitudes on different issues are usually not independent. In the model, agents exchange beliefs regarding a series of facts. A cognitive structure of evaluative associations links different (partially overlapping) sets of facts on different political issues and determines agents’ attitudinal positions in a way borrowed from expectancy value theory. If agents preferentially interact with other agents who hold similar attitudes on one or several issues, this leads to biased argument pools and increasing polarization in the sense that groups of agents selectively believe in distinct subsets of facts. Besides the emergence of a bi-modal distribution of opinions on single issues as most previous opinion polarization models address, our model also accounts for the alignment of attitudes across several issues along ideological dimensions.
Highlights
In line with expectancy-value theories of attitude research and measurement (Fishbein & Raven ; Fishbein ; Ajzen ), we assume that an attitude regarding a political issue is formed through a structure of evaluations regarding the di erent aspects that are relevant for the topic
We provide an example application related to climate change and electricity production inSection to illustrate this potential of linking opinion dynamics more closely to empirical data on political opinion
We look at three di erent conditions concerning the evaluative overlap with respect to the two issues:
Summary
In line with expectancy-value theories of attitude research and measurement (Fishbein & Raven ; Fishbein ; Ajzen ), we assume that an attitude regarding a political issue is formed through a structure of evaluations regarding the di erent aspects that are relevant for the topic. Communication about those topics makes reference to these underlying argumentative dimensions. We present a model in which di erent political issues may be discussed at the same time These topics are not independent but related through the underlying cognitive-evaluative meaning structures.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
