The pervasive presence and influence of political bots have become the subject of extensive research in recent years. Studies have revealed that a significant percentage of active accounts are bots, contributing to the polarization of public sentiment online. This study employs an agent-based model in conducting computer simulations of complex social networks, to elucidate how bots, representing diverse ideological perspectives, exacerbate societal divisions. To investigate the dynamics of opinion diffusion and shed light on the phenomenon of polarization caused by the activities of political bots, we introduced bots into a bounded-confidence opinion dynamic model for different social networks, whereby the effects of bots on other agents were studied to provide a comprehensive understanding of their influence on opinion dynamics. The simulations showed that the symmetrical deployment of bots on both sides of the opinion spectrum intensifies polarization. These effects were observed within specific tolerance and homophily ranges, with low and high user tolerances slowing down polarization. Moreover, the average path length of the network and the centrality of the bots had a significant impact on the result. Finally, polarization tends to be lower when humans exhibit reduced confidence in bots. This research not only offers valuable insights into the implications of bot activities on the polarization of public opinion and current state of digital society but also provides suggestions to mitigate bot-driven polarization.
AldayelA.MagdyW. (2022). Characterizing the role of bots’ in polarized stance on social media. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 12(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-022-00858-z
2.
AverzaA.SlhoubK.BhattacharyyaS. (2022). Evaluating the influence of twitter bots via agent-based social simulation. IEEE Access, 10, 129394–129407. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2022.3228258
3.
AxelrodR. (1997). The dissemination of culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(2), 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002797041002001
4.
AxelrodR.DaymudeJ. J.ForrestS. (2021). Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(50), e2102139118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2102139118
BarabásiA. L.AlbertR.JeongH. (2000). Scale-free characteristics of random networks: The topology of the world-wide web. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 281(1-4), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-4371(00)00018-2
10.
BeatsonO.GibsonR.CunillM. C.ElliotM. (2023). Automation on twitter: Measuring the effectiveness of approaches to bot detection. Social Science Computer Review, 41(1), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211034991
11.
BenklerY.FarisR.RobertsH. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0190923644.
12.
BessiA.FerraraE. (2016). Social bots distort the 2016 us presidential election online discussion. First Monday, 21(11-7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i11.7090
BradshawS.HowardP. N. (2018). Challenging truth and trust: A global inventory of organized social media manipulation. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute.
15.
BramsonA.GrimP.SingerD. J.FisherS.BergerW.SackG.FlockenC. (2016). Disambiguation of social polarization concepts and measures. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 40(2), 80–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250x.2016.1147443
16.
BrooksB.HoganB.EllisonN.LampeC.VitakJ. (2014). Assessing structural correlates to social capital in facebook ego networks. Social Networks, 38(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2014.01.002
17.
BrunoM.LambiotteR.SaraccoF. (2022). Brexit and bots: Characterizing the behaviour of automated accounts on twitter during the UK election. EPJ Data Science, 11(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-022-00330-0
18.
CantiniR.MarozzoF.TaliaD.TrunfioP. (2022). Analyzing political polarization on social media by deleting bot spamming. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 6(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6010003
19.
ChangH. C. H.ChenE.ZhangM.MuricG.FerraraE. (2021). Social bots and social media manipulation in 2020: The year in review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.08436.
20.
ChangH. C. H.DruckmanJ.FerraraE.WillerR. (2023). Liberals engage with more diverse policy topics and toxic content than conservatives on social media.
21.
ChangH. C. H.FerraraE. (2022). Comparative analysis of social bots and humans during the covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Computational Social Science, 5(2), 1409–1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-022-00173-9
22.
ChengC.LuoY.YuC. (2020). Dynamic mechanism of social bots interfering with public opinion in network. Physica A: statistical mechanics and its applications, 551, 124163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2020.124163
23.
CloudyJ.BanksJ.BowmanN. D. (2023). The str (ai) ght scoop: Artificial intelligence cues reduce perceptions of hostile media bias. Digital Journalism, 11(9), 1577–1596. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1969974
24.
ConoverM.RatkiewiczJ.FranciscoM.GonçalvesB.MenczerF.FlamminiA. (2011). Political polarization on twitter. In: Proceedings of the international aaai conference on web and social media(Vol. 5,ISBN 2334-0770, pp. 89–96). https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14126
25.
DeffuantG.AmblardF.WeisbuchG.FaureT. (2002). How can extremism prevail? A study based on the relative agreement interaction model. The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(4), 1. https://www.jasss.org/5/4/1.html.
26.
DeffuantG.NeauD.AmblardF.WeisbuchG. (2001). Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Advances in Complex Systems, 03(01n04), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219525900000078
27.
DellaPostaD.ShiY.MacyM. (2015). Why do liberals drink lattes?AJS; American Journal of Sociology, 120(5), 1473–1511. https://doi.org/10.1086/681254
28.
DruckmanJ. N.LevyJ. (2022). Affective polarization in the American public. In Handbook on politics and public opinion (pp. 257–270). Edward Elgar Publishing.
29.
ErdösP.RényiA. (1960). On the evolution of random graphs. Publication of the Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 5(1), 17–60. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400841356.38
FerraraE.ChangH.ChenE.MuricG.PatelJ. (2020). Characterizing social media manipulation in the 2020 us presidential election. First Monday.
32.
González-BailónS.De DomenicoM. (2021). Bots are less central than verified accounts during contentious political events. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(11), e2013443118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013443118
33.
GranovetterM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
34.
HagenL.NeelyS.KellerT. E.ScharfR.VasquezF. E. (2022). Rise of the machines? Examining the influence of social bots on a political discussion network. Social Science Computer Review, 40(2), 264–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320908190
35.
HahnU.HansenJ. U.OlssonE. J. (2020). Truth tracking performance of social networks: How connectivity and clustering can make groups less competent. Synthese, 197(4), 1511–1541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-01936-6
36.
HaqueA.AjmeriN.SinghM. P. (2023). Understanding dynamics of polarization via multiagent social simulation (pp. 1–17). AI & Society.
37.
HegselmannR.KrauseU. (2002). Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: Models, analysis and simulation. The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(3).
38.
HegselmannR.KrauseU. (2015). Opinion dynamics under the influence of radical groups, charismatic leaders, and other constant signals: A simple unifying model. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 10(3), 477–509. https://doi.org/10.3934/nhm.2015.10.477
39.
HongJ. W.ChangH. C. H.TewksburyD. (2024). Can ai become walter cronkite? Testing the machine heuristic, the hostile media effect, and political news written by artificial intelligence. Digital Journalism, 12, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2024.2323000
40.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
41.
JacobsC. S.NgL. H. X.CarleyK. M. (2023). Tracking China’s cross-strait bot networks against Taiwan. In International conference on social computing, behavioral-cultural modeling and prediction and behavior representation in modeling and simulation (pp. 115–125). Springer.
42.
JostJ. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38(2), 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12407
LorenzJ. (2007). Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence: A survey. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 18(12), 1819–1838. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0129183107011789
46.
LuceriL.DebA.BadawyA.FerraraE. (2019). Red bots do it better: Comparative analysis of social bot partisan behavior. In Companion proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web Conference (pp. 1007–1012). ACM.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
NazirA.RazaS.ChuahC. N. (2008). Unveiling facebook: A measurement study of social network based applications. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement (pp. 43–56). ACM.
51.
RauchfleischA.KaiserJ. (2020). The false positive problem of automatic bot detection in social science research. PLoS One, 15(10), e0241045. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241045
52.
RavandiB.MiliF. (2019). Coherence and polarization in complex networks. Journal of Computational Social Science, 2(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-019-00036-w
53.
RoblesJ. M.GuevaraJ. A.Casas-MasB.GómezD. (2022). When negativity is the fuel. bots and political polarization in the covid-19 debate. Comunicar, 30(71), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3916/c71-2022-05
54.
RolfeM. (2014). Social networks and agent-based modelling. In ManzoGianluca (Ed.), Analytical sociology (pp. 233–260). UK: John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118762707.ch09.
55.
RossB.PilzL.CabreraB.BrachtenF.NeubaumG.StieglitzS. (2019). Are social bots a real threat? An agent-based model of the spiral of silence to analyse the impact of manipulative actors in social networks. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(4), 394–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085x.2018.1560920
56.
SohnD. (2022). Spiral of silence in the social media era: A simulation approach to the interplay between social networks and mass media. Communication Research, 49(1), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219856510
57.
StaufferD.Meyer-OrtmannsH. (2004). Simulation of consensus model of Deffuant et al. on a Barabasi–albert network. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 15(02), 241–246. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0129183104005644
58.
StellaM.FerraraE.De DomenicoM. (2018). Bots increase exposure to negative and inflammatory content in online social systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(49), 12435–12440. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803470115
59.
StrangD.DavidR. J.AkhlaghpourS. (2014). Coevolution in management fashion: An agent-based model of consultant-driven innovation. American Journal of Sociology, 120(1), 226–264. https://doi.org/10.1086/677206
60.
StukalD. K.PhilippovI. B. (2022). Promoting a leader or a cause? An agent-based model of social media bots. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 1, 22–38. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2022.1.2022
61.
TörnbergP. (2022). How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(42), e2207159119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2207159119
62.
UyhengJ.CarleyK. M. (2020). Bots and online hate during the covid-19 pandemic: Case studies in the United States and the Philippines. Journal of computational social science, 3(2), 445–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-020-00087-4
63.
UyhengJ.NgL. H. X.CarleyK. M. (2021). Active, aggressive, but to little avail: Characterizing bot activity during the 2020 Singaporean elections. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 27(3), 324–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-021-09332-1
64.
VarolO.FerraraE.DavisC.MenczerF.FlamminiA. (2017). Online human-bot interactions: Detection, estimation, and characterization. In: Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media (vol. 11, ISBN 2334-0770, pp. 280–289). https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14871
65.
WangR.WalterD.OphirY. (2023). Not all bots are created equal: The impact of bots classification techniques on identification of discursive behaviors around the covid-19 vaccine and climate change. Social Science Computer Review, 42(1), 08944393231188472. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393231188472
66.
WattsD. J.StrogatzS. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442. https://doi.org/10.1038/30918
67.
WilenskyU.RandW. (2015). An introduction to agent-based modeling: Modeling natural, social, and engineered complex systems with NetLogo(ISBN 0262731894). Mit Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
