pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.00888 · v1 · pith:DN675TZFnew · submitted 2019-07-01 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph · cs.SI

The Role of Network Structure and Initial Group Norm Distributions in Norm Conflict

Julian Kohne , Natalie Gallagher , Zeynep Melis Kirgil , Rocco Paolillo , Lars Padmos , Fariba Karimi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 11:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph cs.SI
keywords social normsnetwork homophilyheterophilyagent-based modelnorm conflictGranovetter threshold modelgroup sizeintergroup dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Heterophilic networks with small-to-middling minority groups produce the most similar norm distributions across two interacting groups.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper builds an agent-based model of two groups whose members adopt norms from one another. Agents decide whether to switch norms using an adapted Granovetter threshold rule with uniformly distributed thresholds. The model independently varies how much the groups mix on the network (homophily versus heterophily), the relative sizes of the groups, and the initial distribution of norms within each group. Simulations show that final norm distributions become most alike under heterophilic mixing and moderate minority sizes. High homophily produces high potential for conflict between groups but low conflict inside them, while high heterophily reverses that pattern.

Core claim

In the simulations, norm distributions across the two groups converge most when the network is heterophilic and the minority group is small to medium in size. High-homophily networks generate high potential intergroup conflict and low potential intragroup conflict; high-heterophily networks generate the opposite pattern. Norm change is most probable when initial norms are strongly tied to group membership.

What carries the argument

Adapted Granovetter threshold model in which each agent switches norms once the share of neighbors holding the alternative norm exceeds the agent's randomly drawn threshold, applied on networks whose edge mixing and group-size ratios are varied independently.

If this is right

  • Norm change occurs most readily when norms are initially strongly linked to group membership.
  • Heterophilic networks combined with small-to-middling minority groups produce the highest similarity in final norm distributions.
  • High-homophily networks create high potential intergroup conflict and low potential intragroup conflict.
  • High-heterophily networks create low potential intergroup conflict and high potential intragroup conflict.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same mixing patterns could be tested in laboratory experiments that control network structure while measuring actual norm adoption.
  • Online platforms that reduce homophily might lower between-group norm clashes at the cost of raising within-group clashes.
  • The uniform-threshold assumption could be relaxed to check whether different threshold distributions alter which network structures produce the greatest norm alignment.

Load-bearing premise

Agents update norms solely according to a uniform distribution of thresholds and the model can vary network structure and initial norm distributions independently while holding everything else fixed.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of final norm distributions in real populations whose contact networks have independently measured homophily levels and whose group sizes match the simulated ratios, showing either greater similarity under homophily or greater intergroup conflict under heterophily.

read the original abstract

Social norms can facilitate societal coexistence in groups by providing an implicitly shared set of expectations and behavioral guidelines. However, different social groups can hold different norms, and lacking an overarching normative consensus can lead to conflict within and between groups. In this paper, we present an agent-based model that simulates the adoption of norms in two interacting groups. We explore this phenomenon while varying relative group sizes and homophily/heterophily (two features of network structure), and initial group norm distributions. Agents update their norm according to an adapted version of Granovetter's threshold model, using a uniform distribution of thresholds. We study the impact of network structure and initial norm distributions on the process of achieving normative consensus and the resulting potential for intragroup and intergroup conflict. Our results show that norm change is most likely when norms are strongly tied to group membership. Groups end up with the most similar norm distributions when networks are heterophilic, with small to middling minority groups. High homophilic networks show high potential intergroup conflict and low potential intragroup conflict, while the opposite pattern emerges for high heterophilic networks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an agent-based model of norm adoption between two interacting groups, using an adapted Granovetter threshold model with uniformly distributed thresholds. It systematically varies relative group sizes, network homophily/heterophily, and initial norm distributions to examine effects on normative consensus and potentials for intragroup versus intergroup conflict. Reported outcomes include greatest similarity in final norm distributions under heterophilic networks with small-to-middling minority groups, high intergroup/low intragroup conflict potential in homophilic networks, and the reverse pattern in heterophilic networks.

Significance. If the directional simulation results prove robust under verification, the work contributes exploratory evidence on how network structure modulates norm convergence and conflict in multi-group settings. The explicit design choice to vary homophily, group sizes, and initial distributions independently is a methodological strength for hypothesis generation in social physics.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claims rest on simulation outputs, but the description supplies no implementation details, robustness checks, sensitivity analyses, or error quantification; this is load-bearing because the reported patterns (e.g., similarity under heterophily, conflict asymmetries) cannot be assessed for reliability without those elements.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review and recommendation. We address the single major comment on the abstract below, noting that the manuscript body contains the relevant methodological details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claims rest on simulation outputs, but the description supplies no implementation details, robustness checks, sensitivity analyses, or error quantification; this is load-bearing because the reported patterns (e.g., similarity under heterophily, conflict asymmetries) cannot be assessed for reliability without those elements.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, as a concise summary, does not include implementation specifics, robustness checks, sensitivity analyses or error quantification. This is standard for abstracts given length constraints; such elements appear in the Methods and Results sections of the full manuscript, where the adapted Granovetter threshold model, uniform threshold distribution, network generation for homophily/heterophily, group-size variation, and initial norm distributions are described, along with the simulation protocol. The reported patterns are presented as directional outcomes from systematic parameter sweeps rather than statistically tested claims with error bars. We can revise the abstract to add one sentence noting that results derive from multiple simulation runs across the parameter space, but we do not believe formal sensitivity analysis or error quantification belongs in the abstract itself. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in simulation study

full rationale

The paper is an exploratory agent-based simulation that independently varies network homophily, relative group sizes, and initial norm distributions as explicit input parameters, then reports resulting distributions of norm adoption under a fixed adapted Granovetter threshold rule with uniform thresholds. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are used to derive the reported outcomes; the central claims are direct simulation outputs from the chosen parameter sweeps rather than algebraic reductions or load-bearing citations to prior author work. The modeling choices are presented as design decisions, not hidden assumptions that force the results by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard agent-based modeling assumptions plus the specific choice of uniform threshold distribution and independent variation of network and group parameters; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • uniform distribution of thresholds
    Each agent draws a threshold from a uniform distribution as the decision rule for norm update.
  • relative group sizes
    Varied across simulations to test minority/majority effects.
  • homophily/heterophily parameter
    Controls the fraction of within-group versus cross-group links.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Agents belong to one of two discrete groups and update norms solely on the basis of neighbors' current norms exceeding their threshold.
    Core rule taken from the adapted Granovetter threshold model stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5743 in / 1394 out tokens · 27655 ms · 2026-05-25T11:17:32.213213+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We generate networks with 2000 agents each, where network structure is determined by one parameter for relative group size (g) and one parameter for homophilic/heterophilic preferences of agents (h) [64]. In addition, initial norms for agents were assigned based on three different pairs of binomial probabilities...

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    each agent is assigned a threshold from a uniform distribution [1] and the model simulates normative social influence processes... We opted for 50 iterations of Granovetter’s threshold model

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Threshold models of collective behav ior

    Mark Granovetter. Threshold models of collective behav ior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6):1420–1443, 1978

    work page 1978

  2. [2]

    Norms and beliefs: How change occurs , pages 37–54

    Cristina Bicchieri and Hugo Mercier. Norms and beliefs: How change occurs , pages 37–54. Springer, New Y ork, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Group dynamics

    Donelson R Forsyth. Group dynamics . Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Bel- mont, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms

    Cristina Bicchieri. The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    How do social norms influence prosocial de velopment? Current Opinion in Psychology , 20:87–91, 2018

    Bailey R House. How do social norms influence prosocial de velopment? Current Opinion in Psychology , 20:87–91, 2018. Network Structure, Group Norm Distribution, and Norm Confli ct 25

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Vladimir Melnyk, Erica van Herpen, and Hans C. M. van Trij p. The influence of social norms in consumer decision making: a meta-analysi s. Advances in Consumer Research, 37(1):463–464, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    A f ocus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places

    Robert B Cialdini, Raymond R Reno, and Carl A Kallgren. A f ocus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6):1015–1026, 1990

    work page 1990

  8. [8]

    Kim C. I. M. Megens and Frank M Weerman. Attitudes, delinq uency and peers: the role of social norms in attitude-behaviour incon sistency. European Journal of Criminology , 7(4):299–316, 2010

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    Influence: The psychology of persuasion

    Robert B Cialdini. Influence: The psychology of persuasion . HarperCollins Publishers, New Y ork, 2007

    work page 2007

  10. [10]

    Cooperation and punishme nt in public goods experiments

    Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter. Cooperation and punishme nt in public goods experiments. The American Economic Review , 90(4):980–994, 2000

    work page 2000

  11. [11]

    Tamer Oraby, Vivek Thampi, and Chris T. Bauch. The influe nce of social norms on the dynamics of vaccination behaviour for peaedria tic infectious diseases. Proceedings of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1780): 1–8, 2014

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    Changing the perc eption of the norm: a strategy to decrease binge drinking among college student s

    Michael Haines and Sherilynn F Spear. Changing the perc eption of the norm: a strategy to decrease binge drinking among college student s. Journal of American College Health, 45(3):134–140, 1996

    work page 1996

  13. [13]

    Social identity, self-c ategorization, and the communication of group norms

    Michael A Hogg and Scott A Reid. Social identity, self-c ategorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1):7–30, 2006

    work page 2006

  14. [14]

    Ethnic boundary making: Institutions, power, networks

    Andreas Wimmer. Ethnic boundary making: Institutions, power, networks . Oxford University Press, New Y ork, 2013

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Introd uction: the veil: debating citizenship, gender and religious diversity.Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society , 15(4):397–410, 2008

    Sevgi Kılıç, Sawitri Saharso, and Birgit Sauer. Introd uction: the veil: debating citizenship, gender and religious diversity.Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society , 15(4):397–410, 2008

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2018-10/ frankreich-un-menschenrechtsausschuss-burka-verbot- vollverschleierung-menschenrechte-religionsfreiheit ,

    Zeit Online. https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2018-10/ frankreich-un-menschenrechtsausschuss-burka-verbot- vollverschleierung-menschenrechte-religionsfreiheit ,

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Accessed 16 May 2019

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Germany could impose partial ban on fa ce veils, officials say

    Sheena McKenzie. Germany could impose partial ban on fa ce veils, officials say. https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/19/europe/ germany-veil-ban/index .html, 2019. Accessed 16 May 2019

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    https://www.infratest-dimap.de/ umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/umfrage/aktuell/ grosse-mehrheit-der-deutschen-plaediert-fuer-burka- verbot/,

    Infratest Dimap. https://www.infratest-dimap.de/ umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/umfrage/aktuell/ grosse-mehrheit-der-deutschen-plaediert-fuer-burka- verbot/,

    work page

  20. [20]

    Accessed 01 Oct 2018

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Crime, culture conflict and the sources of su pport for gun control: a multilevel application of the general social surveys

    Gary Kleck. Crime, culture conflict and the sources of su pport for gun control: a multilevel application of the general social surveys. American Behavioral Scientist, 39(4):387–404, 1996

    work page 1996

  22. [22]

    Individualism and collectivism i n america: The case of gun ownership and attitudes toward gun control

    Katarzyna Celinska. Individualism and collectivism i n america: The case of gun ownership and attitudes toward gun control. Sociological Perspectives, 50 (2):229–247, 2007

    work page 2007

  23. [23]

    Abortion in legal, social, and healthcare contexts

    Jeanne Marecek, Catriona Macleod, and Lesley Hoggart. Abortion in legal, social, and healthcare contexts. Feminism & Psychology, 27(1):4–14, 2017. 26 J. Kohne, N. Gallagher, Z.M. Kirgil, R. Paolillo, L. Padmo s, F. Karimi

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Polarization in abortion attitudes in U.S

    John H Evans. Polarization in abortion attitudes in U.S . religious traditions, 1972-1998. Sociological Forum, 17(3):397–422, 2002

    work page 1972

  25. [25]

    Black Pete

    Jeroen Rodenberg and Pieter Wagenaar. Essentializing "Black Pete": competing narratives surrounding the Sinterklaas tradition in the Ne therlands. Interna- tional Journal of Heritage Studies , 22(9):716–728, 2016

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    Sociology: inquiries into the constructions of social form s

    Geog Simmel. Sociology: inquiries into the constructions of social form s. Volume I . Brill, Leiden, 2009. Translated and edited by Anthony J. Bl asi, Anton K. Jacobs and Mathew Kanjirathinkal

    work page 2009

  27. [27]

    Developmental sequence in small group s

    Bruce W Tuckman. Developmental sequence in small group s. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6):384–399, 1965

    work page 1965

  28. [28]

    Dominic J Packer and Christopher T.H. Miners. Tough lov e: the normative conflict model and a goal system approach to dissent decision s. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(7):354–373, 2014

    work page 2014

  29. [29]

    Diversity, inequality and urban change

    Vassilis P Arapoglou. Diversity, inequality and urban change. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(3):223–237, 2012

    work page 2012

  30. [30]

    Super-diversity vs

    Maurice Crul. Super-diversity vs. assimilation: how c omplex diversity in majority-minority cities challenges the assumptions of as similation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 42(1):54–68, 2016

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Political polariz ation in the American public

    Morris P Fiorina and Samuel J Abrams. Political polariz ation in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science , 11(1):563–588, 2008

    work page 2008

  32. [32]

    Homo socionicus: a case study of simula tion models of norms

    Martin Neumann. Homo socionicus: a case study of simula tion models of norms. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation , 11(4):6, 2008

    work page 2008

  33. [33]

    The psychology of social impact

    Bibb Latané. The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4): 343–356, 1981

    work page 1981

  34. [34]

    Models of so cial influence: towards the next frontiers

    Andreas Flache, Michael Mäs, Thomas Feliciani, Edmund Chattoe-Brown, Guillaume Deffuant, Sylvie Huet, and Jan Lorenz. Models of so cial influence: towards the next frontiers. Journal of Artificial Societies & Social Simulation , 20(4):2, 2017

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    Villarreal, Katherine M Keyes , and Sandro Galea

    Bindu Kalesan, Marcos D. Villarreal, Katherine M Keyes , and Sandro Galea. Gun ownership and social gun culture. Injury Prevention , 22(3):216–220, 2016

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    Tankard and Elizabeth L

    Margaret E. Tankard and Elizabeth L. Paluck. The effect o f a supreme court decision regarding gay marriage on social norms and persona l attitudes. Psy- chological Science, 28(9):1334–1444, 2017

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    B irds of a feather: homophily in social networks

    Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M Cook. B irds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology , 27(1):415–444, 2001

    work page 2001

  38. [38]

    Homophily and heterophily in personal networks

    Carlos Lozares, Joan Miquel Verd, Irene Cruz, and Oriol Barranco. Homophily and heterophily in personal networks. from mutual acquaintance to relationship intensity. Quality & Quantity , 48(5):2657–2670, 2014

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    Gender homophily from spatial behavior in a primary school: a socio- metric study

    Juliette Stehlé, François Charbonnier, Tristan Picar d, Ciro Cattuto, and Alain Barrat. Gender homophily from spatial behavior in a primary school: a socio- metric study. Social Networks, 35(4):604–613, 2013

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    Mohsen Jadidi, Fariba Karimi, Haiko Lietz, and Claudia Wagner. Gender disparities in science? dropout, productivity, collabora tions and success of Network Structure, Group Norm Distribution, and Norm Confli ct 27 male and female computer scientists. Advances in Complex Systems , 21(3-4): 1–23, 2017

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Y ou are who you know: inferring user profiles in online social networks

    Alan Mislove, Bimal Viswanath, Krishna P Gummadi, and P eter Druschel. Y ou are who you know: inferring user profiles in online social networks. In Proceedings of the third ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, pages 251–260. ACM, 2010

    work page 2010

  42. [42]

    The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment

    Damon Centola. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science, 329(5996):1194–1197, 2010

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network

    Nicholas A Christakis and James H Fowler. The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. The New England Journal of Medicine , 358(21): 2249–2258, 2008

    work page 2008

  44. [44]

    The spread of o besity in a large social network over 32 years

    Nicholas A Christakis and James H Fowler. The spread of o besity in a large social network over 32 years. The New England Journal of Medicine , 357(4): 370–379, 2007

    work page 2007

  45. [45]

    Creating social contagion through viral product design: a randomized trial of peer influence in networks

    Sinan Aral and Dylan Walker. Creating social contagion through viral product design: a randomized trial of peer influence in networks. Management Science, 57(9):1623–1639, 2011

    work page 2011

  46. [46]

    Social selection and peer influence in an online social network

    Kevin Lewis, Marco Gonzalez, and Jason Kaufman. Social selection and peer influence in an online social network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 109(1):68–72, 2012

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    A macrosociological theory of social stru cture

    Peter M Blau. A macrosociological theory of social stru cture. American Journal of Sociology , 83(1):26–54, 1977

    work page 1977

  48. [48]

    Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments, pages 177–199

    Solomon E Asch. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments, pages 177–199. Carnegie Press, Oxford, 1951

    work page 1951

  49. [49]

    The e ffects of majority versus minority source status on persuasion: a self-validation analysis

    Javier Horcajo, Richard E Petty, and Pablo Briñol. The e ffects of majority versus minority source status on persuasion: a self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3):498–512, 2010

    work page 2010

  50. [50]

    Morality and conformity: the Asch paradigm applied to moral decisions

    Payel Kundu and Denise Dellarosa Cummins. Morality and conformity: the Asch paradigm applied to moral decisions. Social Influence , 8(4):268–279, 2013

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    Ma jority-minority in- fluence: identifying argumentative patterns and predictin g argument-outcome links

    Renée A Meyers, Dale E Brashers, and Jennifer Hanner. Ma jority-minority in- fluence: identifying argumentative patterns and predictin g argument-outcome links. Journal of Communication , 50(4):3–30, 2000

    work page 2000

  52. [52]

    Party over policy: the dominating impa ct of group influence on political beliefs

    Geoffrey L Cohen. Party over policy: the dominating impa ct of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 85(5):808– 822, 2003

    work page 2003

  53. [53]

    Towards an interactive acculturation model: a social psych ological approach

    Richard Y Bourhis, Lena Celine Moise, Stephane Perreau lt, and Sacha Senecal. Towards an interactive acculturation model: a social psych ological approach. International Journal of Psychology , 32(6):369–386, 1997

    work page 1997

  54. [54]

    Contextual influences on acculturation processes: the role s of family, commu- nity and society

    Colleen Ward, Stephen Fox, Jessie Wilson, Jaimee Stuar t, and Larissa Kus. Contextual influences on acculturation processes: the role s of family, commu- nity and society. Psychological Studies, 55(1):26–34, 2010

    work page 2010

  55. [55]

    Minority influenc e and psycho-social identity

    Gabriel Mugny and Stamos Papastamou. Minority influenc e and psycho-social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology , 12(4):379–394, 1982. 28 J. Kohne, N. Gallagher, Z.M. Kirgil, R. Paolillo, L. Padmo s, F. Karimi

    work page 1982

  56. [56]

    Differential contributions of majori ty and minority influ- ence

    Charlan J Nemeth. Differential contributions of majori ty and minority influ- ence. Psychological Review, 93(1):23–32, 1986

    work page 1986

  57. [57]

    Social identity theory and self-cat egorization theory: a historical review

    Matthew J Hornsey. Social identity theory and self-cat egorization theory: a historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1):204–222, 2008

    work page 2008

  58. [58]

    Studies of independence and conformity : I

    Solomon E Asch. Studies of independence and conformity : I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9):1–70, 1956

    work page 1956

  59. [59]

    black sheep effect

    José M Marques, Vincent Y Yzerbyt, and Jacques-Philipp e Leyens. The “black sheep effect”: extremity of judgments towards ingroup membe rs as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology , 18(1):1–16, 1988

    work page 1988

  60. [60]

    From factors to actors : computational sociology and agent-based modeling

    Michael W Macy and Robert Willer. From factors to actors : computational sociology and agent-based modeling. Annual Review of Sociology , 28(1): 143–166, 2002

    work page 2002

  61. [61]

    S ocial simulation in the social sciences: a brief overview

    Flaminio Squazzoni, Wander Jager, and Bruce Edmonds. S ocial simulation in the social sciences: a brief overview. Social Science Computer Review , 32(3): 279–294, 2014

    work page 2014

  62. [62]

    Dynamic models of segregation

    Thomas C Schelling. Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1(2):143–186, 1971

    work page 1971

  63. [63]

    Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence: a survey

    Jan Lorenz. Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence: a survey. International Journal of Modern Physics C , 18(12):1819–1838, 2007

    work page 2007

  64. [64]

    Empirically grounded agent-based models of innovation diffusion: a critical review

    Haifeng Zhang and Y evgeniy Vorobeychik. Empirically grounded agent-based models of innovation diffusion: a critical review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 52(1):707–741, 2017

    work page 2017

  65. [65]

    A simple model of global cascades on rand om networks

    Duncan J Watts. A simple model of global cascades on rand om networks. Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United St ates of America, 99(9):5766–5771, 2002

    work page 2002

  66. [66]

    Homophily influences ranking of minorities in s ocial networks

    Fariba Karimi, Mathieu Génois, Claudia Wagner, Philip p Singer, and Markus Strohmaier. Homophily influences ranking of minorities in s ocial networks. Scientific Reports, 8(1):1–12, 2018

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    R: a language and environment for statistic al computing

    R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistic al computing. https://www.R-project.org/, 2019. Accessed 27 May 2019

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    J. Kohne. Simulating normative conflict. https://github.com/JuKo007/ SimulatingNormativeConflict.DOI:10.5281/zenodo.3183121, 2019. Accessed 07 Jun 2019

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3183121 2019

  69. [69]

    Emergence of s caling in random networks

    Albert-László Barabási and Albert Réka. Emergence of s caling in random networks. Science, 286(5439):509–512, 1999

    work page 1999

  70. [70]

    Network effects and socia l inequality

    Paul DiMaggio and Filiz Garip. Network effects and socia l inequality. Annual Review of Sociology , 38(1):93–118, 2012

    work page 2012

  71. [71]

    Sim ulate this! An introduc- tion to agent-based models and their power to improve your re search practice

    Julia Eberlen, Geeske Scholz, and Matteo Gagliolo. Sim ulate this! An introduc- tion to agent-based models and their power to improve your re search practice. International Review of Social Psychology , 30(1):149–160, 2017. Network Structure, Group Norm Distribution, and Norm Confli ct 29

    work page 2017

  72. [72]

    Agent-based and individual-based modeling: A practical introduction

    Steven F Railsback and Volker Grimm. Agent-based and individual-based modeling: A practical introduction . Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2019

    work page 2019

  73. [73]

    The complexities of agent-bas ed modeling output analysis

    Ju-Sung Lee, Tatiana Filatova, Arika Ligmann-Zielins ka, Behrooz Hassani- Mahmooei, Forrest Stonedahl, Iris Lorscheid, Alexey Voino v, J Gary Polhill, Zhanli Sun, and Dawn C Parker. The complexities of agent-bas ed modeling output analysis. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation , 18(4):4, 2015

    work page 2015

  74. [74]

    Partisan polarization domina tes Trump era: Findings from the 2018 american values survey

    Alex Vandermaas-Peeler, Daniel Cox, Najle Maxine, Mol ly Fisch-Friedman, Rob Griffin, and Robert P Jones. Partisan polarization domina tes Trump era: Findings from the 2018 american values survey. Resourc e docu- ment. Public Policy Research Institute. https://www.prri.org/research/ partisan-polarization-dominates-trump-era-findings- from-the-2018-american-...

    work page 2018

  75. [75]

    Accessed 27 May 2019

    work page 2019

  76. [76]

    Acculturation: living successfully in tw o cultures

    John W Berry. Acculturation: living successfully in tw o cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 29(6):697–712, 2005

    work page 2005

  77. [77]

    Degree attainment for bl ack students at HBCUs and pwis: a propensity score matching approach

    Ray Franke and Linda DeAngelo. Degree attainment for bl ack students at HBCUs and pwis: a propensity score matching approach. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Ass ociation, 2018

    work page 2018

  78. [78]

    Dovidio, S.L

    J.F. Dovidio, S.L. Gaertner, and T. Saguy. Another view of "we": majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1):296–330, 2007

    work page 2007

  79. [79]

    Social consensus through the influ ence of com- mitted minorities

    Jierui Xie, Sameet Sreenivasan, Gyorgy Korniss, Weitu o Zhang, Chjan Lim, and Boleslaw K Szymanski. Social consensus through the influ ence of com- mitted minorities. Physical Review E, 84(1):1–8, 2011

    work page 2011

  80. [80]

    Social influence : compliance and conformity

    Robert B Cialdini and Noah J Goldstein. Social influence : compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology , 55:591–621, 2004

    work page 2004

Showing first 80 references.