Elements of Social Network Analysis that we are Using
Social
Network Analysis (SNA) is a fairly new science. It is fairly intuitive.
(It has to be. It is a science about us!) We all live in groups and
communicate with the people around us.
From the entire SNA tool kit, below are the few elements that we will be using.
Element 1. Actors
The
basis of all social networks is the Actor. In general, Actors are
people, but not always so. Our actors will be people and news sources.
The composition
of the actors is an important question that the game designer will have
to answer: How many actors will be prone to radicalization or will just
plain not change their mind on the topic at hand?
Figure 1 . An actor can be an individual or news source.
Element 2. Connections
The
idea of 'connections' between people is intuitive. Most people feel
connected to the people around them; their family, friends, co-workers,
etc. Measuring 'connectivity' is difficult, and relationships do not
need to be symmetrical. (Jim may respect Bill, but Bill may have no
respect for Jim.) But we will assume its possible to get an idea of an
average number of connections that the actors have.
When
considering the connectivity important for opinion flow two things will
generally be important: frequency of communication and the respect the
partners hold for each other in the topic at hand.
In
our model, a high positive connection strength will indicate respect,
and a high negative number will indicate contempt.
Figure 2. Actors have connections.
Element 3. Networks
Groups of connected individuals form a network.
In this study we won’t group the people in family units, tribal units,
or other sorts of hierarchies – although that is possible to do.
Instead we will take the simple approach that in the large population
connections are basically random, and in a small population the game
creator will dictate it.
Figure 3. Groups of actors form networks.
Force Calculation
As
mentioned in the introduction, we are reducing the actor’s opinions on
the topic at hand into one simple number. We will call this number the
alignment score. Some people believe strongly in an idea. Others are
lukewarm, or may believe in the opposite. The strength of someone’s
belief influences how likely they are to transmit it to others3.
The
scale selected for the alignment scores is arbitrary. One simply has to
be able to indicate people who support or disagree with an opinion, and
indicate how strong they are in their opinions. An example scale is
shown in Table 2. On this scale +1 indicates a normal follower of King
John and +3 a radical follower.
+3
+2
+1
0
-1
-2
-3
Strong Belief
Strong Disbelief
Table 2. Initial alignment scores will need to be assigned to the actors.
We
will calculate the average alignment felt by the actor (weighted by the
strength of their connections) and then measure the distance from that
to the actor’s current alignment. If there is no difference (for
example, if the people around an actor support King John, and he or she already supports King John) then they will feel no force to change their opinion.
Force = Average Alignment felt by Actor – Actors Alignment
Figure 4. The force pulling on the actor comes from their distance from the crowd.
We
are getting the ‘crowd opinion’ from what the actor sees around him or
her. There will be a component roughly analogous to each of the terms
in the Boids algorithm:
Total Force = Force (alignment) + Force (cohesion) + Force (separation)
Force Alignment
Calculate the force on an actor based on what they perceive to be the majority opinion.
Force Cohesion
Calculate the average alignment on the topic at hand across all of the individuals nearby that this individual respects.
Force Separation
Calculate
the average alignment on the topic at hand across all of the
individuals nearby for which this individual has contempt.
Table 3. Review of forces acting on an individual.
By
allowing actors to be either other individuals or news sources, we are
effectively combining our forces of cohesion and alignment,
respectively. Originally it was considered that the force of alignment
would be the force that the nebulous ‘them’ out there have. For
example, someone in the communist Soviet Union would have had know that
there were millions of capitalists. That knowledge could make one
reassess that the people nearby are saying ‘communism beats capitalism.’
But
one has to consider that we only know about the nebulous ‘them’ from
our news sources. Since some leaders seek to control news sources,
knowledge of the nebulous ‘them’ may be restricted. It is better to
treat these news sources, and the respect that an actor may have for
them, individually.
Printer-Friendly Version
