Polarizing crowds: Consensus and bipolarization in a persuasive arguments model.

Understanding the opinion formation dynamics in social systems is of vast relevance in diverse aspects of society. In particular, it is relevant for political deliberation and other group decision-making processes. Although previous research has reported different approaches to model social dynamics, most of them focused on interaction mechanisms where individuals modify their opinions in line with the opinions of others, without invoking a latent mechanism of argumentation. In this paper, we present a model where changes of opinion are due to explicit exchanges of arguments, and we analyze the emerging collective states in terms of simple dynamic rules. We find that, when interactions are equiprobable and symmetrical, the model only shows consensus solutions. However, when either homophily, confirmation bias, or both are included, we observe the emergence and dominance of bipolarization, which appears due to the fact that individuals are not able to accept the contrary information from their opponents during exchanges of arguments. In all cases, the predominance of each stable state depends on the relation between the number of agents and the number of available arguments in the discussion. Overall, this paper describes the dynamics and shows the conditions wherein deliberative agents are expected to construct polarized societies.