# Abstract

The number of people using online social networks in their everyday life is continuously growing at a pace never saw before. This new kind of communication has an enormous impact on opinions, cultural trends, information spreading and even in the commercial success of new products. More importantly, social online networks have revealed as a fundamental organizing mechanism in recent country-wide social movements. In this paper, we provide a quantitative analysis of the structural and dynamical patterns emerging from the activity of an online social network around the ongoing May 15th (15M) movement in Spain. Our network is made up by users that exchanged tweets in a time period of one month, which includes the birth and stabilization of the 15M movement. We characterize in depth the growth of such dynamical network and find that it is scale-free with communities at the mesoscale. We also find that its dynamics exhibits typical features of critical systems such as robustness and power-law distributions for several quantities. Remarkably, we report that the patterns characterizing the spreading dynamics are asymmetric, giving rise to a clear distinction between information sources and sinks. Our study represent a first step towards the use of data from online social media to comprehend modern societal dynamics.

# Introduction

Modern online socio-technological systems are producing a deep change in our traditional networking paradigms and in the way we communicate with each other. At the same time, online social media constitute nowadays efficient and fast means to group together many social agents around a common issue. In this way, new types of economic, financial and social phenomena are arising. An example of the latter is given by the so-called Arab revolts, which have materialized thanks to these new communication platforms. The protests have been mediated by the use of social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, which have been critical for the birth and consolidation of campaigns involving strikes, demonstrations, marches and rallies.

On the other hand, online social networks not only modify in a radical way the dynamics of information and opinion spreading, but are also making our world even more global. More importantly, these platforms generate an enormous amount of time-stamped data, making it possible for the first time to study the fast dynamics associated to different spreading processes at a system-wide scale. These novel and rich data niches allow testing different social dynamics and models that would otherwise be highly elusive with traditional data-gathering methods. Additionally, the availability of data enables the study of phenomena that take place on time scales ranging from a few minutes or hours to a year-long duration. An example of the former kind of fast dynamics is given by large sport or cultural events, whereas cooperative content production such as the case of Wikipedia typically occurs in months or even years, thus, in a much slower time scale.

In this paper, we study the structural and dynamical patterns of the network made up by twitter users who have been involved in a social phenomenon that is currently taking place in Spain: the so-called May 15th movement (henceforth referred to as 15M). This movement-in-the-making had been brewing for a while in the social media, but took off on May 15th when the first demonstrators camped in a central square in Madrid, Spain. From that moment on, the protests and camps spread throughout the country. As many of the adherents are online social media users, the growth and stabilization of the movement was closely reflected in time-stamped data of twitter messages, which we have gathered and analyzed. This will allow us to elucidate the mechanisms driving the emergence of this kind of social phenomenon, and whether it shares dynamical and structural features with other natural, social and technological processes . Additionally, on more general scientific grounds, a social phenomenon like the 15M movement is an excellent opportunity to understand network formation processes and online spreading dynamics. The ultimate aim is to further advance our understanding of this kind of dynamics and eventually be able to make predictions based on real time data monitoring.

In what follows, we present the results of our analysis. On the one hand, we statistically characterize the structural patterns of the network of users who sent or received tweets containing keywords related to the 15M movement. We find that this network displays the typical features of other networks in Nature such as scale-free degree distributions, a community structure at the mesoscale and high structural robustness . On the other hand, we have also analyzed the dynamical patterns characterizing the spreading of information over the 15M network. Our results show that the 15M diffusion dynamics is highly asymmetric. Admittedly, a relative large fraction of the system is actively trafficking, but a great part of the overall traffic is delivered to a few users that do not pass them anymore, thus constituting a sort of information sinks. We round off our analysis by comparing our results with those reported in the literature for other kinds of online dynamical processes.

# Methods

The data used in this study is a set of messages (tweets) that were publicly exchanged through *www. twitter.com*. The whole time-stamped data collected comprises a period of one month (between April 25th, 2011 at 00:03:26 and May 26th, 2011 at 23:59:55) and it was archived by a local start-up company, *Cierzo Development Ltd* using the SMMART Platform. This platform is evolving into a new concept called "Open Social CRM," which combines concepts in monitoring tools, CRM tools, social tools and a philosophy of open innovation. The company restricts its collection to messages in Spanish language that come preferentially from users within or related to Spain. The internals of data collection are private to the company, but basically 23 hours of data are homogeneously collected each day, always leaving the same timeframe (16:00 to 17:00 CET time) to readjust the database due to the introduction of new Spanish nodes, purging of the non-Spanish related ones, etc.

To filter out the whole sample and choose only those messages related to the 15M movement, we selected 70 keywords (*hashtags*, see *Supplementary Information*) which were systematically used by the adherents to the demonstrations and camps. Next, the extracted sample was examined for missing hashtags $-$ of the top ten only one of them was not in the selected set, this being likely related to its bilingual nature *$\#$acampadabcn*. The filtered data set appears to be representative enough of the total traffic related to the 15M movement produced during the period analyzed. As a matter of fact, a comparison with other databases, such as *topsy.com*, which aims to collect the whole set of twitter messages, shows that for the same period there were about 390.000 messages with the word "*acampadasol*" and 190.000 for the hashtag "*$\#$nolesvotes*". Our sample is made up of 189.000 and 66.000 messages and hashtags, respectively, i.e., roughly above a third of the total number of messages.

Once this process is finished, the final sample consists of 581.749 tweets, out of which 46.557 were identified as *retweets* of unknown origin, and therefore were discarded. On its turn, these tweets were produced by 85.851 different users. To complete the data set, we located the references to other users inside each message. These references are marked in the system by an arobase, "$@$username". A user receives a notification, usually via email, each time a mention happens, and the messages having mentions are also copied to a special tab in the user interface. The total number of messages having at least a reference was 151.222. In some cases, the tweet is addressed to more than one user, so that the total pairs (source, target) extracted from these messages was actually higher: 206.592. This is the number of directed arrows in our network. We stress again that our network is a dynamical instance of a larger underlying network (i.e., that made up of followers and followings in twitter).

Finally, although not directly related to the study presented here but important for complementary studies, data for all the involved users were scrapped directly from *twitter.com* using a cloud of 128 different nodes of a subnet. The scrap was successful for 84.229 users, for whom we also obtained their official list of followers. Moreover, about a half of them can be associated to a location (city), which is later translated to geographical coordinates via a standard geo-localization service from *Yahoo*. It is worth remarking that the extraction of followers gave a list in the order of 3 millions users, which roughly coincides with the order of the audience estimated by *Twitter* in Spain.

# Results and Discussion

The availability of time-stamped data allows us to closely track the birth and development of the network made up of users who exchanged tweets related to the 15M movement during the period analyzed. In this network, every node represents a user while a link between two nodes is established whenever they exchange a message. We have made a movie (see the *Supplementary Information* for a low resolution version or go to *http://15m.bifi.es/index.php* for a high resolution one with downloading options) that reproduces the temporal evolution of the networks and the dynamics of messages exchange during the period analyzed. The reader will note the highly dynamic character of the network as well as the dimension of the social phenomenon being analyzed.

The network constructed as described above is weighted and directed, i.e., a link from $i$ to $j$ means that $i$ sent at least a message to $j$ and the weight of the link $i\rightarrow j$ stands for the actual number of such messages. Therefore, the adjacency matrix of the network is not symmetric ($j$ does not necessarily send a message to $i$). Moreover, it is worth noticing that we always work with accumulated data, such that the network at a certain time $t$ includes every message (link) produced at any time $t' \le t$, i.e., once a link is established, it connects the two end nodes forever. Once the network is built, we are able to characterize it from a topological point of view, within the framework of complex network theory . In doing so, we discuss local and global descriptors, as well as the network structure at the mesoscale level. Additionally, we also analyze the dynamics of information spreading over the 15M network and compare our results with those already reported for other dynamical processes that are mediated by the Web 2.0.

## Network Growth and Structure

The first point of interest concerns the structural growth pattern. We wonder whether a collective mobilization of thousands of agents demands a slow, progressive increase in size; or rather social networking platforms enable an abrupt emergence. In Figure (top) we present three snapshots of the system for different days, relative to day $D$ (May 15th). Colors stand for the "age" of the node: early active users are coded in yellow, where those that adhere the network in successive days are coded in green, red, etc. Black is left for the latest adopters (people whose activity began at $D+10$). Besides, the size of the nodes has been made proportional to their activity, taking into account both incoming and outgoing tweets (however, for the sake of clarity, such proportion has been truncated at $k_{in}+k_{out}=200$ in the networks displayed in the figure). Even this simple representation of the evolution of the 15M network is already indicative of the growth in the number of agents once the movement took off and time goes on.

The results depicted in the bottom panel of Figure further illustrate the way in which the network evolves by gaining adherents. The figure represents the proportion of active nodes at time $t$ (with a resolution of 12 hours) in the giant component relative to the total number of users in the network at the end of the growth process. As we can see from the figure, the formation of the network and its later increase in size does not proceed in a gradual proportional process but in a sequence of bursts concentrated in just a few days (from day $D$ to day $D+7$). Obviously this process is driven by the events surrounding the movement: as mentioned, at day $D$ the protesters decided to camp at *Puerta del Sol* square in Madrid, which in turn elicited huge attention from the media and made the difference as far as the spread of the movement to a country wide scale concerns. Besides, from our data, it appears that the number of active users saturates after $D+7$. It is interesting to note that in May 21st ($D+6$), the day preceding local and regional elections, more than the 80% of the network was already formed.

Beyond structural growth, a second key aspect of the network under study concerns the distributions of strengths. The strength $s$ of a given node $i$ is defined, as usual, by the sum of the weights of the links that are incoming and outgoing to node $i$. In our case, it is also important for the discussion that will follow, to further divide this magnitude into two contributions. One the one hand, we have the strength derived from the weights of links incident to the node, $s_{in}$. This magnitude accounts for the total traffic (number of tweets) that a given node receives from its neighbors. Conversely, $s_{out}$ represents the sum of the traffic generated at a node, i.e., the number of tweets this user sends out. Additionally, let $P(s_{in})$ and $P(s_{out})$ be the cumulative distributions of both strengths, which we can be measured at different instants $t$ of the network development.

Figure shows the cumulative distributions of the previous quantities for several times. As can be seen, even before the occurrence of the events that triggered public protests on day $D$, both $P(s_{in})$ and $P(s_{out})$ follow power-laws $P(s)\sim s^{-\gamma}$, but with different exponents ($\gamma_{in}=1.1$ and $\gamma_{out}=2.3$, respectively, as measured at $D+10$). Similar plots for the degree of the nodes exhibit the same behavior. It is well-known that the statistical properties of these variables in other technological, social and natural systems are also heterogeneously distributed. Therefore, the fat-tailed distributions that characterize the topology of the 15M network are not unique, but are rather ubiquitous in Nature. Nonetheless, the fact that the 15M network is scale-free, has deep consequences regarding a number of relevant issues including its origin, complexity, robustness and, from a dynamical point of view, the way in which information flows over the system. As the network obtained comes from the activity of the nodes, the heavy-tailed distribution of both nodes' degrees and strengths suggests a dynamics lacking any typical or characteristic scale.

On the other hand, the dynamical asymmetry between incoming and outgoing degrees or strengths is not surprising neither. Indeed, individual behavior, which ultimately determines the resulting (out) dynamics, is an intended social action, but the emergent properties of the collective behavior of agents are unintended . Essentially, subjects decide when and to whom a given message is sent. Therefore, the aggregate behavior of all agents and their popularity (i.e., how many incoming links a node has) result from individual choices. This is what is reflected in the in and out distributions. As a matter of fact, the exponent of the power law characterizing the degree probability distribution $p(k)$ lies in the interval $(2,3]$, as usually found in most real-world networks. Interestingly, spreading dynamics such as rumor and disease propagation processes are most efficient for scale-free networks whose exponent is precisely in this range . Finally, the strength distribution for the tweets sent, $p(s_{out})$, also resembles a power law function with an exponent larger than 3, although in this case the distribution exhibits an exponential cut-off. This might be due to the fact that sending messages has an associated cost in terms of bandwidth availability, the cognitive capacity to produce different messages and ultimately an unavoidable physical limitation to type them .

Another aspect of capital interest regards how the overall traffic is generated and delivered. One of the main consequences of the functional form of the strength distributions is presented in Figure . The emergence of hubs, namely, the signaling feature of scale-free networks, leads to a predictable oligopoly in the way information is spread. In Figure , we observe that the number of tweets sent grows with the number of active users of the network. The curves corresponding to different days (i.e., instances of the network) nearly collapse into a single one. This means that as users join the network, the traffic generated scales accordingly. Moreover, the figure indicates that, for instance, roughly the 10% of active subjects generate the 52% of the total traffic. This is another indication of the dynamical robustness of the network to random failures but at the same time of its fragility to attacks directed towards that 10% of users. More remarkably, the results depicted in the figure are in sharp contrast with the activity patterns corresponding to received tweets. In this latter case, as time goes on, the number of in-strength hubs decreases. As shown in the figure, by $D+10$, less than 1% of users receive more than 50% of the information. As we will show later on, these nodes correspond to authorities or mass media, which the adherents identify as main receptors (government) of or potential spreaders (mass media) for their messages. However, what at a priori seems to be a good choice, turns out to be harmful for the process of information spreading. As a matter of fact, we have checked that these hubs, which we call *information sinks* do receive a lot of messages but rarely act as spreaders within the network. As a consequence, almost all messages that arrive to those nodes are not redelivered and hence lost. In this sense, our results show that while the delivering of information is shared by a relative large number of users that keep the "social temperature" of the movement, most of this information is simply directed towards a few highly connected targets that might not pass the voice any longer (i.e., they are not active spreaders). Nonetheless, the information exchanged is public and users can therefore access it. This would however imply an individual action (to check a given user's timeline) that is not captured in our twitter data.

## Community Structure

The modular structure is pervasive in many natural, social and technological networks. Generally speaking, modules are islands of highly connected nodes separated by a relatively small number of links. This meso-level skeleton is likely to be relevant to understanding dynamical processes in networked systems. Agents in social networks tend to gather with those who share cultural traits (homophily) or professional interests , and more specifically, political communication networks tend to exhibit a clustered structure along political opinion lines .

We have analyzed the community structure of the 15M network once its size stabilizes, i.e., at $t=D+10$. We have applied a random walk-based algorithm that optimizes a map equation on a network structure . Although alternative community detection algorithms are at hand, we chose the previous strategy because it is suited for networks, as it is actually our case, in which the dynamics of information flow is relevant. These type of algorithms rely on the intuitive idea that, if communities exist, a random walker tends to get trapped in them due to their dense within-connectivity . The output of such information theoretic algorithm is a partition made up of 6388 modules. Most of these communities have less than ten nodes. We focus our analysis on the 30 most important modules from a dynamical perspective, i.e. those which concentrate most of the random walker's activity. These modules do not necessarily coincide with the first 30 communities ranked according to their size, but all of them contain over 100 nodes. Figure shows these 30 communities in a compact view (each node represents a community) . Furthermore, each community is assigned a tag, corresponding to the most central node in that community. Again, these nodes have been identified as being dynamically dominant within their modules, thus they play an outstanding role in the dynamics of information. Our results show that modules are highly hierarchical and that nodes that are central to their communities, i.e., *local hubs*, are mostly hubs at the global scale as well.

The mesoscale structure allows to get deeper insights into social aspects of our case study. First, tags identifying the 30 largest communities are highly heterogeneous. 6 of these modules correspond to important mass media (newspapers and television), which points to the otherwise intuitive fact that users rely on these agents to amplify their opinion. The same can be said of 3 modules corresponding to famous journalists. More interestingly, 7 modules correspond to on-line activists and/or veteran bloggers. These agents are unknown to most people, but they are present in the network from its birth and enjoy a solid reputation that facilitates their being considered a reference in the movement. Remarkably, 7 modules are formed by camps in 7 different cities. Madrid is of course the main one, as the movement began there (*acampadasol*, which comprehends over 3000 nodes). Other cities are Barcelona, Granada, Zaragoza, Valencia, Seville and Pamplona.

The fact that communities are geographically defined suggests some additional conclusions: (i) the mesoscale reflects the autonomy of each of the assemblies throughout the Spanish geography. Each of these modules hardly connects to any other, indicating a low communication between them; (ii) the exception to the previous point is Madrid: each minor camp holds a strong communication interchange with the community represented by *acampadasol*. Taking points (i) and (ii) together, it can be safely said that the movement is highly centralized, because in most cases a peripheral settlement is only influenced by Madrid and one or two minor ones. Finally, (iii) despite the potential of Web 2.0 communication platforms, data indicates that these media are mostly used to communicate with geographically close people. In other words, the network is *global*, but communication is mainly *local*. This is further verified in Table , where we have summarized the percentage of people whose geolocated information coincides with that of the module (city).

## Popularity Evolution

The Web 2.0 has brought to network science the challenge to deal with highly dynamic, changing structures. Besides source and target nodes, and a (perhaps weighted) link between them, one must now consider a new ingredient: time. In this context, an interesting issue is related to the evolution of particular nodes: understanding how an element (be it a Wikipedia entry or a novel trend in social networks) comes to existence (appears in the network) and develops. Of further interest is to elucidate how a subset of these network's components ends up as a "popular" entity. This is a key aspect in network development, as popular agents eventually have an impact on other agents' opinions, acting as a referent, be those opinions related to politics, culture or business.

To capture the dynamics of popularity, we follow the framework recently proposed in . The natural quantity to measure popularity in a communication network is the number of messages that arrive at a node, which corresponds to that node's in-strength $s_{in}$, and the rate at which $s_{in}$ changes. Hence, a way to grasp how the activity of a node evolves is to consider its logarithmic derivative $[\Delta s/s]_{t} = (s_{t}-s_{t-1}) / s_{t-1}$, i.e., the relative variation of strength in a time unit (we omit subindex "in" for clarity). Figure displays the evolution of the latter variable for some arbitrarily chosen nodes among those that are information sinks. Beyond an initial surge typically observed in many nodes, the time series of the logarithmic derivative evidence a bursty behavior. Fluctuations depend on exogenous events, in a strong parallelism with the external circumstances that drive the whole network's strong changes. It is noteworthy that these patterns closely resemble other, less conflictive, examples of popularity evolution in the Wikipedia or the Web .

On the other hand, Figure shows how bursts are distributed according to their magitude for two different time intervals but the same time granularity (1 day). The observed pattern, which is the same regardless of the time intervals under consideration, clearly shows heavy-tailed distributions, again in close resemblance to results already reported for other web-mediated dynamics and a variety of critical phenomena in physical, economic and social systems. As a matter of fact, a simple model can account for the observed bursts distribution. The so-called *rank model* is specially conceived for networks in which prestige, rather than degree-based preferential attachment, plays a central role to determine nodes' connectivity . The rank model depends on a prestige measure that is used to rank nodes. In this model, the probability that a new node that joins the network at $t+1$ connects to an older one $j$ is given by $$p(t+1 \rightarrow j) = \frac{R_{j}^{-\alpha}}{\sum_{i=1}^{t} R_{i}^{-\alpha}}$$ where $R_{j}$ is the rank of node $j$ and $\alpha > 0$ determines the exponent $\gamma$ of the resulting power-law degree distribution $p(k)$, such that $\gamma = 1 + \frac{1}{\alpha}$. Figure compares the bursts distributions resulting form the data and from the model. The results shown correspond to the case in which nodes are ranked according to their age and $\alpha$ has been set to $0.9091$ (for this value we obtained the best fit to the actual degree distribution of the empirical network). Moreover, we note that in order to simulate the non steady growth of the network, we have considered for the synthetic case that 1 day has gone by when the size of the network being generated coincides with that of the empirically assembled network for that time.

As we can see from the figure, even under the simplest rank rule, the burst magnitude distribution is nicely reproduced. As for our specific social context, the previous results do not imply that the driving mechanism behind the evolution of the 15M network is that simple, but illustrate that bursty activity of this sort can be produced by generic mechanisms. Given that this self-organized activity is widespread in nature, there are no reasons to consider that the network has its origin in external actions. Nonetheless, it must be pointed out that although the rank model grasps the main observed trends, both regarding structural characteristics and dynamical facts, yet other important aspects extracted from the data are not captured by the model. These limitations demand model refinements beyond the scope of the present study.

# Conclusions

The social phenomenon here presented as a case study is a collective endeavor that is expressed at many levels, ranging from public demonstrations and camps to the presence of news in the mass media. In this work we have analyzed data from time-stamped, online activity in a specific social networking site during the formation and stabilization of this social movement. From a scientific point of view, these data represent a challenge as most network studies typically deal with a static structure.

Undoubtedly, there are many facts that can be easily identified as the grounds of the 15M movement. Among them, the world-wide economic crisis and the impact it has had on society. Nonetheless, the particular events that triggered the growth of the whole movement remain unknown and are beyond the scope of this work. Addressing these questions would probably require an in-depth semantic analysis of the contents of interchanged messages. From its onset, our statistical characterization of the communication network built from tweets exchanged between adherents (and opponents) reveals a strong resemblance to well-known phenomena in natural and manmade systems, which are admittedly self-organized.

Additionally, the 15M movement also raises relevant questions with sociological consequences. We argue that information centralization (Figure ), as well as patterns of popularity growth (Figures and ) are indicative of a tendency towards a hierarchical structure. Opinion leaders emerge spontaneously and minor actants devote much energy to communicate with them (be it to have their ideas echoed, or to influence such leaders). This proclivity is coherent with economy of attention , i.e., the system tends to avoid the overabundance of opinions to prevent scarcity of attention, but raises doubts about the possibility of converging to an egalitarian social system in which information flows and is received in an efficient manner. As far as our analysis concerns, we have shown that in a dynamics such that the one at work for our case, a relative large number of information sources exist, which is behind the robust functioning of the system. Conversely, communication sinks, where information is lost, are also generated.

On the other hand, our analysis of the community structure reveals some interesting facts. Geo-centered modules are abundant, but ideological or fame-related ones are also remarkable. It is important to keep in mind that time-stamped data is the dynamic (or functional) result of the activity on top of a more stable underlying structure, that of "following" and "followers" in the social networking site. For this reason, the communication network we observe is ever-changing and we argue that modules within it have not a straightforward interpretation.

Finally, we have studied the patterns by which nodes become increasingly more visible. Results indicate that popularity growth in the context of political conflict does not display significant differences from other, less fashionable examples. Popularity is dominated by a fluctuating behavior, and popularity burst distributions lack of a characteristic scale. This fact connects the dynamics of popularity with other critical phenomena in many natural and artificial systems.

In summary, online social networks and the Web 2.0 provide new challenges to network theory. Events in the real world, ranging from economic phenomena to political protest, stand as the driving forces leading to the emergence of complex, time-evolving communication patterns. In this scenario, network theory stands as a suitable tool to unfold the structural and dynamical facets of such emergent systems.

# Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Beatriz Antolí, Guillermo Losilla, Rubén Valles and Isabel Vidal for their help and assistance at several stages of this study. J.B.-H is supported by the Government of Aragón (DGA) through a grant to FENOL and by Spanish MICINN through project FIS2008-01240. D.I. is supported by the Government of Aragón through a Fundación ARAID contract. Y. M. was partially supported by the FET-Open project DYNANETS (grant no. 233847) funded by the European Commission, by Spanish MICINN through projects FIS2008-01240 and FIS2009-13364-C02-01 and by Comunidad de Aragón (Spain) through the project FMI22/10. We also acknowledge the Spanish MICINN for financial support through the project FIS-164-50.

# Figure Legends

# Tables

| **community tag** | **area**  | **fraction of users from same area** |
|:-----------------:|:---------:|:------------------------------------:|
|   @acampadasol    |  Madrid   |                 54%                  |
|   @acampadabcn    | Barcelona |                 81%                  |
|   @acampadavlc    | Valencia  |                 63%                  |
|   @acampadazgz    | Zaragoza  |                 82%                  |
| @acampadagranada  |  Granada  |                 53%                  |
| @acampadasevilla  |  Sevilla  |                 83%                  |
|   @15MPamplona    | Pamplona  |                 71%                  |

**Geographic origin of nodes in region-based communities**


abstract: We here present a model of the dynamics of extremism based on opinion dynamics in order to understand the circumstances which favour its emergence and development in large fractions of the general public. Our model is based on the bounded confidence hypothesis and on the evolution of initially anti-conformist agents to extreme positions. Numerical analyses demonstrate that a few anti-conformist are able to drag a large fraction of conformists agents to their position provided that they express their views more often than the conformists. The most influential parameter controlling the outcome of the dynamics is the uncertainty of the conformist agents; the higher their uncertainty, the higher is the influence of anti-conformists. Systematic scans of the parameter space show the existence of two regime transitions, one following the conformists uncertainty parameter and the other one following the anti-conformism strength.
  .
  .
  **Keywords:** Extremism, opinion dynamics, bounded confidence, clustering, anti-conformism.
author: Gérard Weisbuch
Laboratoire de Physique Statistique
et Centre de Recherche sur l'Environnement et la Société
de l'Ecole Normale Supérieure,
24 rue Lhomond, F 75231 Paris Cedex 5, France.
*email*:firstname.lastname@example.com
bibliography: biblio.bib
title: From anti-conformism to extremism

# Introduction

The present paper discusses the dynamics of extremism in a democratic setting. A probably over-optimistic view of democracy is that when opinions are openly expressed, some consensus opinion would emerge and citizens would vote in favour of a government whose actions would be in accordance with the views of a large majority of citizens. This utopia is shared by many writers, but History has consistently shown us that National Consensus was a dream, that could eventually occur at war time, not such a wishful situation.

At least one would expect that the elected government would be close enough to a centrist position satisfying the largest proportion of citizens, as the ice cream seller choosing to put his stand near the middle of a linear beach ().

Once again, History since the Eighteenth century Enlightenment period in Western Europe contradicts these simple views and we are not observing a smooth evolution towards more consensus nor towards the success of centrists parties. We rather observed alternation between regimes of dominance of centrists political parties and regimes of strong ideological fights between more extremist parties, eventually leading to de facto dictatorship, according to time periods and world regions. The present paper is an essay to model possible evolutions of public opinions leading to different opinion aggregation landscape forming the basis of political entities corresponding to parties. We here develop a model of opinion dynamics in order to answer such questions as:

-   How come rational[^1] people choose extremism?

-   How does an initial low proportion of anti-conformist influences/(or does not), a large fraction of the general population to aggregate in powerful extremist clusters?

-   What characterises political clusters in terms of the number of agents in the cluster and their distance to a middle opinion? More precisely what are the regions in the parameter space of the model which would lead the different outcome of the dynamics?

The simulations presented in this paper are based on opinion dynamics: agents exchange their views on the occasion of encounters, and they might update their opinion as a result of these exchanges. We are well aware that opinion formation in politics involves many other processes than encounters and discussions among individuals: media, political parties, the government and other political institutions are involved as well. For the sake of clarity, we postpone the discussion of the robustness of our results with respect to these other factors to the last section of the paper.

The earliest models of opinion dynamics were binary opinions models, where opinions could take only two discrete values, e.g. -1 and +1 in the so-called voters models as described in , and summarised in .

We here present a model based on continuous opinions, more adapted to the discussion of the assets and liabilities of political choices among agents, and to the traditional right/left axis of political analysts, than binary opinions. It is inspired from two approaches, the bounded confidence model of and the anti-conformism model of . Since these two models are used as building blocks of our model, we will first summarise their main aspects.

The rest of the paper is then divided into 3 sections

-   Short reminders of the previous models.

    -    bounded confidence model including its application to extremism.

    -   Smaldino and Epstein model of anti-conformism.

-   Our synthetic model is developed and its results presented.

-   Conclusions and discussion.

Disclaimer

The present paper should not be interpreted as normative: we rather try to describe the evolution of opinions and political choices. One can certainly give examples such as Civil Rights in general, when initially considered extremist opinions were later largely accepted by the public. And other cases in which the consequences of extremism turned out to be dramatic.

# Essentials of former models

In order to achieve consistency in notations and hypotheses, we use our own notation throughout the paper, which sometimes differ from those of and and make appropriate scale changes.

## Bounded confidence

The bounded confidence model is based on a major cognitive bias, the confirmation bias (): we are mostly influenced by opinions close to ours and tend to reject opinions too far away. The mathematical model was independently introduced by and by . It follows the spirit of Axelrod's earlier model of dissemination of cultures. In model, cultures are described by strings of integers. Pairs of agents interact if their cultures are already close enough, in which case one of them adjusts one feature of its culture string to match that of the other agent's culture.

In bounded confidence models, opinions are represented by real numbers. When opinion differences are lower than a confidence threshold, agents adjust their opinion by decreasing such difference. In Deffuant et al. model, pairs of agents are randomly chosen in the population of agents and they eventually adjust their opinion if the confidence condition is met. Another pair is randomly chosen, and so on. Such an iteration mode is called random sequential.

By contrast apply the same opinion updating equation but they use parallel iteration: all opinions are updated simultaneously. Their choice is well adapted to discussions in committees for instance.

We will consistently use random sequential iteration in this paper.

## Deffuant et al. bounded confidence model

bounded confidence model was introduced to model situations in which actors have to take decisions involving cost/benefit analysis in terms of money. Such was the case when the Common Agricultural Policy was modified in 1992: farmers were proposed to change their former practices in favour of more environment friendly practices, e.g. by reducing fertilisers and pesticides use, in exchange for financial aid. But optimising new practices involved a lot of financial uncertainties and surveys demonstrated that farmers would have many social interactions discussing the pros and the cons of the environmental contracts before taking any decision.

model can be simply described:

Opinions are represented by a **continuous variable** $x$.

Two randomly chosen agents with opinions $x$ and $x'$ interact if, and only if, $|x-x'|<u$. Opinions are updated according to: $$\begin{array}{c}
  x = x + \mu \cdot (x'-x) \\
  x' = x' + \mu \cdot (x-x')
\end{array}$$

$u$ represents the uncertainty of the agents, and $\mu$, taken between 0 and $0.5$, is a kinetic parameter. If the two initial opinions are close enough, the two agents interact and their opinions move closer. Otherwise, no opinion change occurs[^2].

#### Simulations

An initial distribution of agents opinions is first randomly established. To achieve maximum randomness most authors choose a uniform distribution on a segment. The first model of Deffuant used \[0,1\] as initial segment. Later most authors used \[-1,1\] as initial segment which we do in this paper for the sake of comparison.

At each time step, a random pair of agents is chosen, to which the above described updating algorithm is applied.

Simulations are stopped after convergence of opinions into one or several clusters.

#### Results

Opinions vs time plots, figure 2, represent opinion dynamics. Each point on the graph represents the opinion of an individual agent along the y axis at time t on the horizontal axis when the agent is tested for opinion change. The time unit for all plots corresponds to 1000 pair updatings (on average each agent is tested twice per time unit). Individual dots might hardly be distinguished on these plots, but the envelope of the clouds gives an indication of the gradual convergence of opinions in the course of time.

These two plots compare the evolution of opinions until convergence. The number of agents is 1000, $\mu=0.1$, initial opinion uniformly and randomly chosen on segment \[-1,1\]. Uncertainty $u$ is 0.6 for the left plot and 0.4 for the right plot. Time 150 correspond to sampling 150 pairs, so each agent has been sampled for updating 300 times on average.

have shown that agents uncertainty $u$ is the main determinant of the outcome of the dynamics.

To summarise the results relevant to our analysis:

-   Opinions are clustered in $n=int(\frac{1}{u})$ clusters which do not interact any more after a long enough time ($int$ stands for integer part).

-   Clusters are of equal size and are at least $2u$ apart.

We will further refer to the above statements as the $n=int(\frac{1}{u})$ rule. The general expression for an initial distribution of opinions on a segment of width $w$ is $n=int(\frac{w}{2u})$.

## Deffuant et al. model of extremism

later proposed of model of extremism prevalence inspired from the bounded confidence model. Their extremism model bears certain differences with the bounded confidence model, the most relevant for us is the introduction of a small fraction of extremists in the agent population. Extremists are different from the other agents by having a very low uncertainty and by having extreme opinions at the end of the spectrum $[-1,1]$. also added a dynamics on uncertainty: agents not only exchange opinions but also uncertainty $u$.

The main issue in is whether the small fraction of extremists is able to drag towards extremism the normal (centrist) agents with initially larger uncertainty and extended distribution of opinions.

The initial fraction of extremists plays some role in the outcome of the dynamics, but the most significant result is that the centrists uncertainty $u$ determines the outcome of the dynamics in large regions of parameters. For narrow uncertainties, say $u \leq 0.4$, a few perc. of centrists are dragged toward extremism. For $u \simeq 1$ initially moderate agents are split in two opposed extremist fractions, and for $u \geq 1.4$ most moderate agents are dragged towards an asymmetric single extremist attractor, close to either -1 or +1.

This extremism model and the full set of results described in , and more recently in , show that extremists can convert a large fraction of the population for the largest values of the centrist uncertainty, even when their number is relatively small with respect to the total population. What is missing is the reason why extremism first arises. postulate the initial existence of some extremists in the population from empirical observations of the political scene of most countries, including democracies. The model by provides a clue to the origin of extremism.

## Anti-conformism generates extremism

recently introduced a model of anti-conformism and its consequences on individual preferences: "Social Conformity Despite Individual Preferences for Distinctiveness". [^3] The concept of distinctiveness plays a central role in several social psychological theories of self and identity processes. In such framework, positions are most often taken in multi-dimensional spaces. Since we here represent political opinions as continuous variables on a bounded support, the most distinctive opinions should be those at the boundaries. The idea is that some political agents choose anti-conformist attitudes to attract attention and get some prestige. The process can be observed among political activists and we will further discuss in the conclusion section why some professional political agents choose non-conformism or extreme positions.

In the Smaldino-Epstein model, instead of exchanging with other agents to share common views, anti-conformist agents react to the distribution of opinions (which they are supposed to be aware of) and they choose opinions away from the average opinion of the other agents. Anti-conformists view as ideal a position $x^*$ such that:

$$x^* = x_{aver} + \delta \cdot \sigma$$ where $x_{aver}$ is the average opinion of the distribution, $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of the distribution and $\delta$ a kind of anti-conformist strength. Agents then gradually update their opinion in the direction of $x^*$ according to:

$$x = x + \mu \cdot (x^*-x)$$

Although anti-conformists wish to remain distinct from the crowd, since they all share the same goal $x^*$ the variance of the distribution actually decreases during each iteration by a factor $1-\mu$ and they converge towards a single attractor. Starting from an initial uniform distribution on segment \[-1,+1\], for positive values of $\delta$, the final opinion cluster is well above the initial opinion average at $\sigma_0\delta$, where $\sigma_0$ is the initial standard deviation. The asymptotic opinion can then stand outside the initial opinion range for large values of $\sigma_0\delta$.

In other words, anti-conformism[^4] results in convergence to more extreme opinions than the initial average opinion, which makes the process a valuable hypothesis on the origin of extremism. Of course many other factors can play a role, but we will here only investigate the importance of the anti-conformism factor[^5].

# The synthetic model

In the present synthetic model, two different populations of agents are introduced:

-   Conformists obeying a bounded confidence model as in . The conformists can be directly influenced by all individual agents within their uncertainty range. Their opinions aggregate into clusters.

-   Anti-conformists obeying the anti-conformist model of . The anti-conformists are only influenced by the local properties, average opinion and standard deviation of the agents' opinion, within their uncertainty range. As a result, they soon move towards the exterior of the distribution of conformists.

Numerical simulations show that a large fraction of the conformists agents also evolve towards extreme positions where they form extra clusters with anti-conformists.

Let us stress the difference between the anti-conformists of the present model and the extremists of . In , the extremists have been given **ab initio** extreme positions and they are far less susceptible to centrists attraction than the other agents. In the present model, anti-conformists have the same initial opinion distribution than the other agents. They evolve towards extreme positions because of their specific dynamics. They become little influenced by centrists when they get close to their equilibrium position because meanwhile centrists opinions have coalesced into clusters, thus reducing the standard deviation of their distribution. In other words, anti-conformists **acquired** a role similar to extremists. By contrast, the attraction of conformists towards anti-conformist has been identically maintained.

## Model description

Two populations of conformists and anti-conformists co-exist and interact according to the threshold condition. For any agent, anti-conformist or conformist, interactions only involve their neighbourhood, $[x-u,x+u]$. $u$ is the same for conformists and anti-conformists and specifies the interaction range for both types of agents.

We start from a uniform initial distribution of agents opinions on the \[-1,+1\] segment.

At each time step, one agent is first randomly selected.

If an anti-conformist were selected during the first draw, it interacts with all the agents within the reach of its opinion $[x_e-u,x_e+u]$ using the Smaldino-Epstein algorithm, moving towards the local $x^*$. This happens with probability $r$ where $r$ is the fraction of anti-conformist agents. And that's it for the round.

If the first agent were a conformist, which happens with probability $1-r$, a second agent is randomly selected and we apply the Deffuant algorithm. In fact, if the second agent were an anti-conformist, only the conformist moves towards the anti-conformist since anti-conformists are not involved in binary interaction[^6]. In other word, their only moves are those dictated by the Smaldino-Epstein algorithm.

Figure 4 describes the tree of probabilities for one sampling round.

Since we here describe the political arena, we further add two more rules for anti-conformists.

-   Anti-conformists choose positions outside the crowd and as far as possible from the other party(ies); a simple implementation of this inclination is to choose positive (resp. negative) values of $\delta$ for anti-conformists with positive opinion (resp. negative). This simple rejection rule is only applied to anti-conformists[^7]. Anti-conformist opinions are only updated when the first draw was an anti-conformist.

-   We take into account the fact that anti-conformists are more active in propaganda than conformists. They express their opinion more often than conformists, whether in the streets or in the media (). One extra parameter of the model is $f$ the relative frequency of opinion expression of anti-conformists with respect to the frequency of expression of conformists. This is implemented in the model by the fact that any anti-conformist is randomly selected for interaction $f$ times more often than any conformist.

Let us be more specific about the implementation of the second rule concerning the second draw. Let $r$ be the fraction of anti-conformist in the population. Since any anti-conformist is selected $f$ more often than any conformist, anti-conformists are selected for interaction with a probability proportional to $rf$. Conformists are selected with a probability proportional to $1-r$. Normalising probabilities to sum 1 implies to draw anti-conformists with probability $\frac{rf}{1+r(f-1)}$ and conformists with probability $\frac{1-r}{1+r(f-1)}$.

## Simulation results

#### Time plots and histograms

Let us first compare time plots (fig. 4 and 6) and asymptotic histograms (fig. 5 and 7) of opinion dynamics, when one changes the relative expression frequency parameter $f$ from 1 to 20. The following plots were drawn for an uncertainty level $u=0.3$, anti-conformism strength $\delta=2$, number of agents 1000, number of iterations per agent 300, fraction of anti-conformists 0.05, kinetic factor $\mu=0.1$. Let us remind here for the sake of comparison that the $int(\frac{1}{u})$ rule predicts 3 clusters at opinions -0.66, 0 and 0.66 in the absence of anti-conformists.

As a preliminary conclusion, the presence of 5 percent anti-conformists in the population does not modify the distribution of conformists opinion when anti-conformists have the same level of opinion expression as conformists (fig. 5 and 6).

However as one can observe on the next couple of figures 7 and 8, anti-conformists strongly influence the distribution of conformist opinions when anti-conformists express their views 20 times more often than conformists. Figure 7 shows that interaction among conformists make them converge into 4 clusters. The respective positions of conformists and anti-conformists clusters results from their mutual interaction: anti-conformists first aggregate outside conformists, but later, after conformists aggregation, the anti-conformists have a reverse motion towards the closest conformists' cluster, symmetrical to the motion of the extreme conformist cluster towards anticonformists.

#### Variability of asymptotic clusters

As a matter of fact, several trials with different random sampling give qualitatively equivalent results: the presence of a few outspoken anti-conformist (with $f=20$) changes the attractors of opinion dynamics from three clusters to two center clusters + two extreme clusters; but the cluster positions and amplitude might change noticeably between simulations with different random samplings for the same set of parameters. Such instabilities are well known in random processes such as Polya urns or Chinese restaurant process (). In the case of Polya urns, a coloured ball is randomly drawn from the urn and two balls of the same colour are then replaced in the urn. When the initial number of balls is small, say one red ball and one black ball, the proportion of late samplings is strongly dependent upon the first occurring draws and is thus susceptible of large fluctuations. We are precisely in a similar case, since the initial opinions and sampling of the 50 anti-conformist have a strong influence on the outcome of the dynamics. This phenomenon is a particular instance of the path dependence phenomenon observed in non-linear and random processes (). Path dependence reflects the influence of history, which importance in politics is not a surprise to political scientists.

We therefore performed 100 simulations per set of parameters and display the results as histograms. In the next 3 figures, red histograms correspond to conformist opinions at the end of the simulation and green histograms correspond to anti-conformist opinions. The blue histograms corresponding to simulations in the absence of anti-conformist are shown for the sake of comparison. Common simulation parameters are anti-conformism strength parameter $\delta=2$, number of agents 1000, number of iterations per agent 3000, fraction of anti-conformist 0.05, kinetic factor $\mu=0.1$ and multiplicative frequency factor of anti-conformist $f=20$. They only differ by the uncertainty levels: $u=0.3, 0.4, 0.6$.

The 3 figures confirm that large levels of expression by anti-conformists allow them to drag significant fractions of conformists towards the two emergent extreme clusters, with some variability in positions and relative amplitude. The influence of anti-conformists increases the number of clusters composed of conformists by (at least) one; two extreme clusters have opinions aligned with those of anti-conformists, while the remaining cluster(s) (which can be 0, 1 or 2) are centered closer to the original opinion average[^8].

The following simple argument explains the increase in the number of clusters due to the influence of the anti-conformist agents. Two extreme conformist clusters of initial width $u$ are attracted by the anti-conformists. They don't participate in the formation of the central clusters. The "effective" width $w_c$ of initial segment of conformists which end up in the central clusters is then reduced to $2-2u$, instead of 2. Applying the $n=int(\frac{w_c}{2u})$ rule to the number $n_c$ of central clusters gives $n_c=int(\frac{1-u}{u})$. The predicted total number of clusters is then: $$n=2+int(\frac{1-u}{u})$$ A comparison with simulation results gives:

| uncertainty | predicted clusters' number | observed number |
|------------:|:--------------------------:|:---------------:|
|          .6 |             2              |        2        |
|          .4 |             3              |        3        |
|          .3 |             4              | 5 with overlap  |

#### Checking the path dependency

Because the earlier steps of the dynamics are so important, we might expect that anti-conformists have a stronger influence if they step in earlier rather than later. In the next two sets of simulations, the frequency factor $f$ was either decreased or increased linearly in time between 1 and 20, for the same set of parameters as in figure 10. One can check that the red histogram taken for decreasing $f$ from 20 to 1 is nearly the same as the red one on figure 10, obtained in the presence of 5 perc. anti-conformists with relative expression frequency 20, while the green one for increasing $f$ from 1 to 20 is nearly the same as the blue one (obtained in the absence of anti-conformist) on figure 10. In other words, the early expression of extremist views determines the outcome of the process, while late expression has nearly no effect.

#### The consensus regime

For larger uncertainty values, such as $u=0.9$, the situation changes dramatically. Single runs show that there remains only one cluster of conformists at the same position as the anti-conformist cluster; consensus is restored. But a more systematic survey running 300 simulations per set of parameters shows on figure 13 that the position of the single cluster varies widely along the opinion axis; furthermore, no peak structure similar to those observed at lower uncertainties is apparent on the histogram of clusters. The vertical bars of the histogram are the number of opinions divided by the number of conformist agents. Except for a small region in the neighbourhood of opinion 0.0, the height of the peaks are integer values, indicating that for each simulation, all opinions are concentrated in one single cluster. A first tentative explanation for randomness of the cluster position rests on the faster dynamics at larger $u$ values: nearly all pair samplings satisfy the confidence condition for interaction, and convergence is then faster, as we checked on time plots (not represented). We have earlier seen that faster convergence yields more sensitivity to the early steps of the dynamics and more dispersion of the asymptotic results.

Obtaining a consensus for $u=0.9$ is in accordance with the $int(1/u)$ rule of the bounded confidence model; but the standard bounded confidence model yields a consensus attractor close to the center of gravity of the initial distribution, which is quite different from the present result: the consensus peaks seem randomly located on the \[-1,+1\] opinion axis.

Our results also differ from those of the extremism model of who predict clusters located close to the anti-conformist initial positions i.e -1 or +1, for large values of $u$ ( in accordance to their hypotheses of quasi-fixed position of anti-conformist at -1 or +1). By contrast, for large values of $u$, in our present model, the position of anti-conformist initially scattered over the entire $[-1,+1]$ segment results largely from the earlier iteration steps and can undergo large fluctuations.

The transition between single cluster dynamics at larger $u$ and two clusters dynamics at lower $u$ is smooth; it is a crossover rather than a sharp transition and occurs around $u=0.8$. At $u=0.8$ the histogram (fig 14) displays co-occurrence of bins with integer values corresponding to single clusters and of bins with non-integer values clustered in two wide peaks around $\pm 0.66$.

#### Influence of simulation parameters

In order to study the influence of the different parameters $r, f, u, \mu$ and $\delta$ on the outcome of opinion dynamics, one has to compress the information in the histograms by monitoring some of their characteristics. We have chosen to monitor the characteristics of the positive 'extreme' peak, the rightmost peak[^9] observed on figures 9, 10, 11. We monitored the fraction of opinions in the peak (i.e how many conformists were attracted by the rightmost anti-conformists), their average deviation (how far from the initial average 0 they were attracted), the standard deviation of the distribution of opinions in the peak[^10], and finally the product of the average times the fraction[^11] . This latest quantity measures some kind of "attractiveness". We shall see that this attractiveness often (but not always as further discussed) displays relatively little variation, corresponding to a balance between how many conformists are attracted by anti-conformists and how far they are attracted.

The present systematic investigation of the role of simulation parameters is limited to the lower values[^12] of $u$, in the multiple clusters regime.

Applying this method to the **influence of uncertainty $u$** one obtains the following graph (fig.15), some points ($u=0.3, 0.4, 0.6$) of which can be checked against the histograms on fig. 9, 10 and 11. The linear increase with $u$ of the fraction of agents attracted to the extreme peak is simply understood from the width of the conformist's zone under the influence of the anti-conformist: since anti-conformist move early to the upper boundary of the conformist cluster they can at most influence a fraction $u$ of them. The simulated results give fractions of 0.227 for $u=0.3$, 0.33 for $u=0.4$ and 0.43 for $u=0.6$, not far away from the $u$ upper-bound. But the attracted fraction saturates close to 0.5 at larger $u$ values, when the two extremist clusters are competing.

Increasing the **fraction $r$** of anti-conformist (fig. 16) and their relative **frequency of intervention $f$** (fig. 17) increases the average deviation of the peak from 0. The ratio of biased moves of conformists towards anti-conformists to their converging moves obtained from the tree of probabilities (figure 4) is $\frac{rf}{1-r}$ This ratio increases with both $r$ and $f$, and so does the average deviation of the peak.

**$\mu$** is a priori a simple **kinetic parameter** which increase reduces the convergence time. For instance, a value of 0.5 was generally considered as optimal in bounded confidence models since it implies the full agreement between a pair of agents on the middle position in one single iteration. But as observed with this plot (fig. 18), $\mu$ also influences the peak characteristics. When convergence is fast, the initial steps of the iteration process have an even stronger influence on the outcome of the dynamics - see for instance the dramatic increase of the standard deviation of the rightmost peak when $\mu = 0.4$. A technical conclusion is that in order to avoid strong sampling variations, opinion dynamics models should be run with values of $\mu \leq 0.25$. This is anyway compatible with the fact that in real life several interactions are necessary to significantly change opinions.

The variations of the rightmost peak characteristics with **$\delta$ the anti-conformism intensity** are non-monotonic. When $\delta$ increases from 1.5 to 2.6, the average deviation increases, which is a direct consequence of equation (2). But it reaches a maximum around $\delta=2.6$. The change of slopes of the average deviation, of the fraction of conformists in the peak and of the attractiveness curves, as the strong increase of the standard deviation are evidences of a regime transition around $\delta=2.6$

To observe the transition region in detail (fig. 20), we came back to individual asymptotic histograms similar to figures 6 and 8. One notices that before the transition, at $\delta=2.4$ the leftmost and rightmost peaks of conformists histograms (in red) occur at the same opinion values as anti-conformist histogram peaks (in green). For higher values of $\delta$ the anti-conformist peaks are outside the leftmost and rightmost conformists peaks. In other words, the anti-conformists became unable to drag anymore the conformists to their position.

Since larger values of conformists uncertainty $u$ make them more susceptible to the influence of anti-conformists, the stalling transition value $\delta_s$ increases with $u$: we observed a transition at $\delta_s=2.5$ when $u=0.3$, at $\delta_s=2.8$ when $u=0.4$ and at $\delta_s=3.2$ when $u=0.6$.

To summarise on "Attractiveness", it displays relatively small variations with $r,f$ and $\mu$, reflecting a rough balance[^13] between how many conformists are attracted toward extremism and how far. The same relative stability is observed with respect to $\delta$ until $\delta=2.5$. Attractiveness decays when $\delta>2.5$ and this is an indication of a change in dynamical regime: anti-conformists lost their strong influence on conformists. The increase in "attractiveness" with conformists's uncertainty $u$ also reflects the series of transitions in the number of clusters with $u$.

# Discussion and conclusions

Let us first summarise our results.

-   Anti-conformism of small fraction of the agents population can result in the emergence of large extremist clusters, provided that the anti-conformists express more often their views than conformists.

-   This influence exists whatever conformist uncertainty, and it is larger when uncertainty increases. Two distinct dynamical regimes are observed according to the value of uncertainty. For lower values, anti-conformists drag important fractions of conformist agents to their own extreme position. For higher values of uncertainty, consensus is restored, but along a much wider range of positions which can be centered far away from the initial center of gravity of initial opinions.

-   Obviously the anti-conformist influence increases with their number and the frequency of their interventions. By contrast, one observes a transition in the anti-conformist influence when anti-conformists position themselves too far away from the center; they then loose influence and are unable to drag large fractions of conformists.

-   Early intervention of anti-conformists increases their influence. And the early steps of the dynamics are responsible for the large deviations in peak positions.

-   The results concerning the number of peaks in the opinion distribution as a function of the uncertainty parameter and their approximate position are robust. The exact position of the peak cannot be predicted accurately, due to the susceptibility of the probabilistic dynamics to initial samplings.

Let us now discuss how these conclusions would eventually be modified by the other players in the political game, media, parties, and other institutions such as elections, government etc.

In fact, media and political parties re-enforce the influence of non-conformists. Journals, newspapers or television compete for readership and audience. Journalists fight for impact, notoriety and reputation. In this market for information, or cognitive market as proposed by , the motivations are the same as for anti-conformists of . Impact is achieved by taking simple, extreme and fast positions. The tendency is increased by the use of Internet, from which journalists often take their views. The fast communication procedures on Social Networks also favour the extremes as observed on tweets and readers reaction to articles in the press. To maximise audience, societal and political debates on the television are dramatised: they oppose extreme views and seldom result in consensus. As a matter of fact, the media contribute largely to the high value of the relative frequency factor $f$ used in our simulations. In that respect, the growing role of the media and especially of the Internet will not automatically lead to a better understanding of challenges and options, but might on the contrary favour the expression of extremist views.

The same mechanisms can be observed during the political debate inside parties, before elections. Party members are competing to get positions inside the party or to represent the party in future elections. They also want to make clear that they are faithful to their party by strongly opposing other parties views. For them too, a simple ideological position is easier to express and to defend, than balancing between the contradictory constraints faced in the choice of a policy adapted to societal challenges.

So both media and political parties internal discussions re-reinforce the influence of extremists.

The dynamics might be different during elections and at the government level. On the occasion of national elections for instance, parties have to adapt their program to the electorate and make alliances to win support. In principle they should move towards the center for this. But when the electorate comprises strong extremist clusters, as often observed in our simulations, they have a choice to position themselves clearly on one side of the political checkers, especially under the influence of their members which are biased with respect to the 'rational' position of optimising support from the general population.

The government itself has to navigate between general support and the support from inside the parties of the alliance which brought it in power.

In conclusion of the present discussion, the dynamical processes inside the media and the parties are in agreement with our hypothesis of a stronger expression of anti-conformist positions. This re-enforce the conclusions of our model.

On the other hand, other aspects of politics concerning general elections or government positions necessitate further analysis.

What we tried to demonstrate is that evolution towards extremism does not automatically imply coercion, strategic plots or the control of the media by a single agent. Simple human cognitive processes such as anti-conformism, cognitive biases and uncertainty of agents can favour its emergence and its influence on the constituency.

The results of our simulations were interpreted in terms of politics, but they could also provide some insight into other social phenomena involving the dynamics of extreme choices:

-   In markets of luxury goods: for instance, why do people buy fast cars or SUV vehicles when they have little use for these products? How is the market driven by these extreme choices?

-   in Fashion and in the Arts, where anti-conformism is the rule driving the perpetual motion of expressed realisations;

-   in the propagation of imaginary dangers related to new technologies in the media and the Internet ().

**Acknowledgements** We thank Joshua Epstein and Paul Smaldino for sending their preprint prior to publication and the participants to the "séminaire inattendu" for their comments. We thank anonymous referees for their corrections and for raising interesting issues.

[^1]: rational here does not refer to economists' full rationality but rather to its common sense, people able to practice some form of reasoning

[^2]: Many extensions of the bounded confidence model were proposed as described in the review of . Some take into account the possiblity of repulsion among agents such : agents can be either attracted for small differences in opinions, but can also have repulsive interaction when their difference is larger than another upper thresold. Other models, , consider two populations of interacting agents, some having only attractive interaction, others also having repulsive interactions.

[^3]: Their paper does not explicitely refer to politics but they quote several references about politics.

[^4]: Other authors have introduced anti-conformist agents in the simulation of binary opinion dynamics . In the context of binary opinions, say 0 or 1, anti-conformists have opinions **opposed** to the opinion of their neighbours. In the model as in the present paper, the anti-conformists choose opinions **further** than those of other agents. Their position can be described as 'plus royaliste que le Roi' or in English 'more catholic than the Pope'. Hence, the dynamics of 'our' mixed population is quite different from those described in

[^5]: The paper covers more situations than reported here, including heterogeneity of $\delta$, the anti-conformist strength. It e.g. shows that the above conclusions on convergence of the dynamics remain true provided that such heterogeneity is limited: the standard deviation of the $\delta$ distribution should be less than 1.

[^6]: We have chosen not to move the anti-conformist, although the alternative choice, move according to SE rule could have been made. Anyway, differences in behaviour between the two choices would not have changed qualitatively the dynamics for our choice of parameters.

[^7]: This simple implementation does not cause any practical problem for opinion values close to zero since anti-conformists move away very soon from the average as observed in figures 5 and 7.

[^8]: A word of caution: such histograms could be interpreted either as histograms of the positions of single isolated peaks as observed in figures 5 and 7, or as the aggregation of wider peaks. We confirm that only the first interpretation is correct from many direct observations of asymptotic histograms of single iteration processes. Furthermore, wide peaks would not be stable under the bounded confidence process.

[^9]: Isolating the rightmost peak for these measurements was done by checking the histograms for a gap left of the peak and taking measurements on the remaining bins right of the gap; for figure 10 e.g., the empty bin at 0.65 opinion can be used to start collecting the statistics.

[^10]: These three quantities correspond to standard measurements of peak characteristics in spectra, the area under the peak (fraction), the peak position with respect to the origin (average deviation), and the peak width (twice the standard deviation). For figure 10 e.g. the fraction of opinions in the righmost peak is 33 perc., the average position is 0.91 and the standard deviation 0.10.

[^11]: In the next five figures, the fraction of opinions, the standard deviation and the attractiveness are given by the scale on the left, in red, and the average deviation by the scale on the right, in green.

[^12]: larger values of $u$ were previously investigated in the section on the consensus regime.

[^13]: we can only conjecture about this balance, but we have no explanation for it, nor why changes in attractiveness or its derivatives goes along with transitions in dynamical regimes.