Two sides of the same leader: an agent-based model to analyze the effect of ambivalent opinion leaders in social networks

4Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Opinion leaders (OLs) are becoming increasingly relevant on social networking sites as their visibility can help to shape their followers’ attitudes toward a variety of issues. While earlier research provided initial evidence on the effect of OLs using agent-based modeling, it remains unclear how OLs affect their network environment and, therefore, the opinion climate when: (a) they publicly hold ambivalent attitudes, and (b) they not only express support for their own stance but also discredit or ‘debunk’ the opposing side. This paper presents an agent-based model that determines the influence of OLs in social networks in relation to ambivalence and discreditation. The model draws on theoretical foundations of OLs as well as attitudinal ambivalence and was implemented using two network topologies. Results indicate that OLs have significant influence on the opinion climate and that an unequal number of OLs of different opinion camps lead to an imbalance in the opinion climate only in certain situations. Furthermore, OLs can dominate the opinion climate and turn their stance into a majority opinion more effectively when discrediting the opposing side. Ambivalent OLs, on the other hand, can contribute to greater balance in the opinion climate. These findings provide a more nuanced analysis of OLs in social networks by pointing to potential amplifications as well as boundaries of their influence. Implications are discussed with a focus on human and artificial key actors in online networks and their efficacy therein.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Röchert, D., Cargnino, M., & Neubaum, G. (2022). Two sides of the same leader: an agent-based model to analyze the effect of ambivalent opinion leaders in social networks. Journal of Computational Social Science, 5(2), 1159–1205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-022-00161-z

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free