Culture – James A. Kitts

January 2, 2014November 4, 2024

Cultural Integration and Differentiation in Groups and Organizations

Experimental and field research has demonstrated a pervasive tendency toward pairwise conformity among individuals connected by positive social ties, and work using formal models has shown that opinions on connected influence networks should thus converge toward uniformity. Observing that diversity persists even in small scale groups and organizations, we investigate two empirically grounded mechanisms of social differentiation that may account for this persistence: First, actors may dislike or disrespect peers who diverge too much from their own views, and may change their opinions or behaviors to distance themselves further from those negative referents. Second, when surrounded by similar others, actors may try to maintain a sufficient sense of uniqueness by exploring new opinions or behaviors. Using computational experiments, we demonstrate that these two mechanisms lead to different patterns of polarization, radicalization, and factionalism and also investigate the conditions under which integration occurs. In closing, we discuss the implications for cultural dynamics in organizations.

Mäs, Michael, Flache, Andreas, and James A. Kitts. “Cultural Integration and Differentiation in Groups and Organizations.” Perspectives on Culture and Agent-Based Simulations: Integrating Cultures, Springer, 2014.

January 1, 2014November 4, 2024

Cultural Evolution of the Structure of Human Groups

Small-scale human societies are a leap in size and complexity from those of our primate ancestors. We propose that the behavioral predispositions which allowed the evolution of small-scale societies were also those that allowed the cultural evolution of large-scale sociality, in the form of multiple transitions to large-scale societies. Although sufficient, the cultural evolutionary processes that acted on these predispositions also needed a unique set of niche parameters, including ecological factors, guiding norms, and technologies of social control and coordination. Identifying the regularities and patterns in these factors will be the empirical challenge for the future.

Carel van Schaik, Pieter Francois, Herbert Gintis, Daniel Haun, Daniel J. Hruschka, Marco A. Janssen, James A. Kitts, Laurent Lehmann, Sarah Mathew, Peter J. Richerson, Peter Turchin, Polly Wiessner. “Cultural Evolution of the Structure of Human Groups” Cultural Evolution. Cambridge, MIT Press, 2014.

January 2, 2003November 4, 2024

Polarization in Dynamic Networks: A Hopfield Model of Emergent Structure

Why do populations often self-organize into antagonistic groups even in the absence of competition over scarce resources? We look for answers by exploring the dynamics of influence and attraction between computational agents. Our model is an extension of Hopfield’s attractor network. Agents are attracted to others with similar states (the principle of homophily) and are also influenced by others, as conditioned by the strength and valence of the social tie. Negative valence implies xenophobia (instead of homophily) and differentiation (instead of imitation). Consistent with earlier work on structural balance, we find that networks can self-organize into two antagonistic factions, without the knowledge or intent of the agents. We model this tendency as a function of network size, the number of potentially contentious issues, and agents’ openness and flexibility toward alternative positions. Although we find that polarization into two antagonistic groups is a unique global attractor, we investigate the conditions under which global uniformity or pluralistic alignments may also be equilibria.

Macy, Michael W., Kitts, James A., Flache, Andreas, and Steve Benard. “Polarization in Dynamic Networks: A Hopfield Model of Emergent Structure. Dynamic Social Network Modeling and Analysis, National Academies Press, 162-173, 2003.