Polarization and Persuasion as Opposite Integration Strategies in Collective Models

References

• Avuthu, C. S. R., Maleszka, M. M., and N. V. Sinh. 2020. Interchangeability of knowledge and opinion integration strategies in collective models. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC), Toronto, Canada, October 11–14. IEEE (in print).
   Google Scholar
• Baldassarri, D., and P. Bearman. 2007. Dynamics of political polarization. American Sociological Review 72 (5):784–811. doi: 10.1177/000312240707200507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barthélemy, J.-P., and F. R. McMorris. 1986. The median procedure for n-trees. Journal of Classification 3 (2):329–34. doi: 10.1007/BF01894194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brauer, M., C. M. Judd, and M. D. Gliner. 2006. The effects of repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group discussions. Key Readings in Social Psychology 1:265.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, K. A. 2009. A practitioner's guide to persuasion: an overview of 15 selected persuasion theories, models and frameworks. Patient Education and Counseling 74 (3):309–17. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.12.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan, R., and N. Jonard. 2001. Knowledge creation, knowledge diffusion and network structure. In Economics with heterogeneous interacting agents, ed. A. Kirman and J. B. Zimmermann, 327–43. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Danilowicz, C., and N. T. Nguyen. 2000. Consensus-based methods for restoring consistency of replicated data. In Intelligent information systems. Advances in soft computing, vol. 4, 325–36. Heidelberg: Physica.
   Google Scholar
• Dubois, E., and G. Blank. 2018. The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society 21 (5):729–45. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franco, A. M., and D. Filson. 2000. Knowledge diffusion through employee mobility (No. 2000-61). Claremont Colleges Working Papers in Economics.
   Google Scholar
• Kelman, H. C. 2006. Interests, relationships, identities: Three central issues for individuals and groups in negotiating their social environment. Annual Review of Psychology 57:1–26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klichowski, M. 2020. People copy the actions of artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology 11:1130. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreng, V. B., and C. M. Tsai. 2003. The construct and application of knowledge diffusion model. Expert Systems with Applications 25 (2):177–86. doi: 10.1016/S0957-4174(03)00045-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leskovec, J., D. P. Huttenlocher, and J. M. Kleinberg. 2010. Predicting positive and negative links in online social networks. Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, Raleigh, NC, April 26. 641–50. doi: 10.1145/1772690.1772756.
   Google Scholar
• Li, H., S. S. Bhowmick, and A. Sun. 2011. Casino: Towards conformity-aware social influence analysis in online social networks. Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, Glasgow, UK, October. 1007–12.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, J. G., Q. Zhou, Q. Guo, Z. H. Yang, F. Xie, and J. T. Han. 2017. Knowledge diffusion of dynamical network in terms of interaction frequency. Scientific Reports 7 (1):1–7. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-11057-8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maleszka, M. 2017. Observing collective knowledge state during integration. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 32 (2):1241–52. doi: 10.3233/JIFS-169123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maleszka, M. 2019a. Application of collective knowledge diffusion in a social network environment. Enterprise Information Systems 13 (7–8):1120–42. doi: 10.1080/17517575.2018.1526325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maleszka, M. 2019b. A vector-fuzzy model of a decentralized collective. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 37 (6):7313–23. doi: 10.3233/JIFS-179341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maleszka, M. 2019c. Unsupervised collective as a simulation tool for social networks. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC), Bari, Italy, October 6–9. 641–6. doi: 10.1109/SMC.2019.8914213.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen, N. T. 2000. Using consensus methods for solving conflicts of data in distributed systems. In SOFSEM 2000: Theory and practice of informatics. SOFSEM 2000. Lecture notes in computer science, eds. V. Hlaváč, K.G. Jeffery, and J. Wiedermann, vol. 1963, 411–9. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen, V. D., and N. T. Nguyen. 2016. An influence analysis of the inconsistency degree on the quality of collective knowledge for objective case. In Intelligent information and database systems. ACIIDS 2016. Lecture notes in computer science, eds. N. T. Nguyen, B. Trawiński, H. Fujita, and T. P. Hong, vol. 9621, 23–32. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Pratkanis, A. R. 2007. Social influence analysis: An index of tactics. In Frontiers of social psychology. The science of social influence: Advances and future progress, ed. A. R. Pratkanis, 17–82. New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Søilen, K. S. 2019. Making sense of the collective intelligence field: A review. Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business 9 (2):6–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Surowiecki, J. 2004. The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. New York: 1st Doubleday Books.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou, T. 2011. Understanding online community user participation: A social influence perspective. Internet Research 21 (1):67–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar