arxiv:cond-mat/ v2 [cond-mat.other] 16 Mar 2004

Transcription

1 Neighborhood models of minority oinion sreading arxiv:cond-mat/43339v2 [cond-mat.other] 16 Mar 24 C.J. essone 1, R. oral 1,2, P. Amengual 1, H.S. Wio 1,2 and M. San Miguel 1,2 1 Instituto Mediterráneo de Estudios Avanzados IMEDEA (CSIC-UIB), Camus UIB, E-7122 Palma de Mallorca, Sain 2 Deartamento de Física, Universitat de les Illes Balears, E-7122 Palma de Mallorca, Sain (Dated: Setember 17, 218) We study the effect of finite size oulation in Galam s model [Eur. Phys. J. B 25 (22) 43] of minority oinion sreading and introduce neighborhood models that account for local satial effects. For systems of different sizes N, the time to reach consensus is shown to scale as lnn in the original version, while the evolution is much slower in the new neighborhood models. he threshold value of the initial concentration of minority suorters for the defeat of the initial majority, which is indeendent of N in Galam s model, goes to zero with growing system size in the neighborhood models. his is a consequence of the existence of a critical size for the growth of a local domain of minority suorters. I. INRODUCION here is a growing interest among theoretical hysicists in comlex henomena in fields dearting from the traditional realm of hysics research. In articular, the alication of statistical hysics methods to social henomena is discussed in several reviews [1, 2, 3, 4]. One of the sociological roblems that attracts much attention is the building or the lack of consensus out of some initial condition. here are several different models that simulate and analyze the dynamics of such rocesses in oinion formation, cultural dynamics, etc. [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 2, 21, 22]. Among all those models, the one introduced by Galam [7, 8] to describe the sreading of a minority oinion, incororates basic mechanisms of social inertia, resulting in democratic rejection of social reforms initially favored by a majority. In this model, individuals gather during their social life in meeting cells of different sizes where they discuss about a toic until a final decision, in favor or against, is taken by the entire grou. he decision is based on the majority rule such that everybody in the meeting cell adots the oinion of the majority. Galam introduced the idea of social inertia in the form of a bias corresonding to a resistance to changes or reforms, that is: in case of tie, one of the decisions (in the original version, the one against) is systematically adoted. We will describe in detail the model and its main conclusions in the next sections. his simle model is able to exlain why an initially minority oinion can become a majority in the long run. An interesting examle was its alication to the sread of rumors concerning some Setember 11-th oinions in France [8]. One of the major conclusions of the mean-field-like analysis in Ref.[7], is the existence of a threshold value c < 1/2 for the initial concentration of individuals with the minority oinion (against the social reform). For > c every individual eventually adots the oinion of the initial minority, so that the social reform is rejected and the status quo is maintained. A related message of this result is that a rumor sreads, although initially suorted by a minority, if the society has some bias towards acceting it. Galam traces back his results to dynamical effects roduced by the existence of asymmetric unstable oints reviously considered by Granovetter [23] and Schelling [24]. hese are fixed oints of recursion relations describing the dynamics of the fraction of a oulation adoting one of two ossible choices. In threshold models these relations are obtained considering a mean field tye of interaction in which individual thresholds to change choice (tolerance) are comared with the fraction of the oulation that has already adoted the new choice. Granovetter himself [23] discusses that the stability of the fixed oints can be changed by satial effects, noting that the assumtion that each individual is resonsive to the behavior of all the others is often inaroriate. In [7] such comlete connectedness of the oulation seems to be circumvented by the introduction of the meeting cells. Only individuals in each meeting cell interact among themselves. In this sense each meeting cell lays the role of a bounded neighborhood [24] and it is still ossible to obtain analytically recursion relations for the dynamics. However, contrary to the bounded neighborhood model of Schelling, individuals enter and leave these neighborhoods randomly, and the neighborhoods do not have any characteristic identity other than their sizes. Even if the meeting cells are thought of as sites where local discussions take lace, Galam s model [7] does not incororate local interactions since the individuals are randomly redistributed in the meeting cells at each time ste of the dynamics. he alternative considered by Schelling to the bounded neighborhood model is a satial roximity model in which everybody defines his neighborhood by reference to his own satial location. he satial arrangement or configuration within the neighborhood mediates the interactions. We roose here a different neighborhood model which shares some characteristics with the bounded neighborhood and satial roximity models: he meeting cells are neighborhoods defined by satial location, therefore introducing imortant local effects, but the interaction within the neighborhood is indeendent of the satial configuration within the cell. Contrary to the model in [7] the individuals are here located

2 2 at fixed sites of a lattice. he local neighborhood or meeting cell in which a given individual interacts changes with time, reflecting neighborhoods of changing shae and size. Such neighborhood model could be aroriate for a relatively rimitive society in which interactions are redominantly among neighbors, but the size of the neighborhood or interaction range is not fixed. A different version of Galam s model was introduced by Stauffer [14]. At variance with our neighborhood models in which individuals are fixed in the sites of a lattice and the meeting cells have a maximum size, Stauffer considers the situation in which individuals freely diffuse in a lattice with only a fraction of sites being occuied. his diffusion rocess leads to the formation of natural clusters which lay the role of our meeting cells: It is within each one of these clusters in which the rule of majority oinion and bias towards minority in case of a tie are taken. Staufferfinds in hismodel that thetime to reacha consensus oinion grows logarithmically with system size N. We also find this deendence in the original model of Galam, while in our neighborhood models the consensus time takes much larger values and is comatible with a ower law deendence. A related model, including the figure of the contrarians (that is, eole that always oose to the majority osition), was later introduced by Galam [25] and also analyzed by Stauffer [26]. A main consequence of introducing the satial effects considered in our neighborhood models is that the threshold found in [7] disaears with system size, i.e. lim N c =, so that in large systems the minority oinion always sreads and overcomes the initial majority for whatever initial roortion of the minority oinion. his is a consequence of the existence of a critical size for a local domain of minority suorters. Domains of size larger than the critical one will exand and occuy the whole system. For large systems there is always a finite robability to have a domain of over-critical size in the initial condition. While in traditional Statistical Physics we are mostly concerned with the thermodynamic limit of large systems, these findings emhasize the imortant role of system size in the sociological context of models of interacting individual entities. he outline of the aer is as follows. Section 2 reviews the original definition of Galam s model [7, 8] and introduces our new local neighborhood models. In Sect. 3 we go beyond the mean field limit of Refs.[7, 8] by discussing the system size deendence of the redictions of the original model. Steady-state and dynamical roerties of our neighborhood models are resented in Sects. 4 and 5. General conclusions are summarized in Sect. 6. II. DEFINIION OF HE MODEL A. Galam s original non-local model he model considers a oulation of N individuals who randomly gather in meeting cells. A meeting cell is just defined by the number of individuals k that can meet in the cell. Let us define a k as the robability that a articular erson is found in a cell of size k. Obviously, it is k a k = 1. hedynamicsofthe modelisasfollows: firstthemeeting cells are defined by giving each one a size according to the robability distribution {a k }, such that the sum of all the cell sizes equals the number of individuals N, but otherwise their location or shae are not secified. hese cells are not modified during the whole dynamical rocess. he ersons have an initial binary (against, +, or in favor, ) oinion about a certain toic. he robability that a erson shares the + oinion at time t is P + (t) and an equivalent definition for P (t) = 1 P + (t). Initially one sets P + (t = ) =. Alternatively, P + (t) can be thought of as the roortion of eole suorting oinion + at time t. he N individuals are then distributed randomly among the different cells. he basic remise of the model is that all the eole within a cell adot the oinion of the majority of the cell. Furthermore, in the case of a tie (which can only occur if the cell size k is an even number), one of the oinions, that we arbitrarily identify with the + oinion, is adoted. Once an oinion within the different cells has been taken, time increases by one, t t + 1 and the individuals rearrange by distributing themselves again randomly among the different cells. he main finding of this model is that an initially minority oinion, corresonding to < 1/2 can win in the long term. his is an effect of the tie rule that selects the + oinion in case of a tie. It is ossible to write down a recursion relation for the density of eole that at time t have the + oinion as [7] P + (t+1) = M Simultaneously[28] P (t+1) = M a k k=1 j=[ M +1] 2 M k=1 a k M j=[ M+1 2 ] ( ) k P + (t) j [1 P + (t)] k j, j (1) ( ) k P (t) j [1 P (t)] k j, j (2) the notation [x] indicates the integer art of x. his is a mean-field equation that neglects ossible fluctuations. For a wide range of distributions {a k } this ma has three fixed oints: two stable ones at P + = 1 and P + = and an unstable one, the faith oint, at P + = c. Hence, the dynamics is such that lim P +(t) = t { 1 if P+ () > c if P + () < c (3) B. Neighborhood models We now introduce our Neighborhood Models that incororate local satial effects in the interacting dynamics

3 time ste, new cells, uncorrelated to the revious ones are defined and the dynamical rules alied again. he rocess continues until there is a single common oinion in the whole system wo-dimensional neighborhood model: synchronous udate FIG. 1: (a) Regular 2D tessellation: All the cells are simultaneously created, being m x and m y uniformly distributed between 1 and M. (b) Locally grown tessellation: A site (i,j) is chosen, and from it a cell of size m x,m y, excluding those already belonging to other cell. roosed by Galam. In these local models, individuals are fixed at the sites of a regular lattice and they interact with other individuals in their satial neighborhood. We have considered several cases: 1. One-dimensional neighborhood model: synchronous udate he N individuals are distributed at the sites of a linear lattice i = 1,2,...,N. Once distributed, they never move again. Initially they are assigned a robability of adoting the + oinion, and (1 ) the oinion. he dynamics starts by defining the meeting cells k = 1,2,... as the segments [i k,i k+1 1] of length m k = i k+1 i k. he cell sizes m k are distributed according to a uniform distribution in the interval [1,M]. he average cell size is hence m k = (M+1) 2 and the average number of cells is N/ m k. Once the cells are defined, the dynamical rules of Galam s model are alied synchronously to all the cells, time increases by one t t + 1. In the next he two-dimensional case is very similar to the 1D version exlained above. he only difference is the way the meeting cells are defined in the two-dimensional lattice. An individual is now characterized by two indexes (i, j) with 1 i,j L, such that the total number of individuals is N = L 2. We have considered two different definitions of the cells originated in two tessellations of the lane: (a) the regular tessellation and (b) the locallygrown tessellation. In the regular tessellation, we define segments in the i and j axis indeendently, such that the sizes are in both cases uniformly distributed between 1 and M in the same way that we did in the onedimensional case. Figure 1a lots a tyical examle. In the locally-grown tessellation we first choose a site of the lattice and then define a rectangle around it whose sides are both uniformly distributed between 1 and M. he cell is defined then as the sites in the resulting rectangle excluding those sites that already were art of a reviously defined cell. Figure 1b shows a tyical examle. Once the cells are defined, the dynamical rules are alied synchronously to all the cells and a common oinion is formed within each cell. ime then increases by one t t+1. In the next time ste, new cells are defined and the rocess continues until a consensus oinion is reached in the whole oulation. 3. Asynchronous udate he 1D and 2D models have been also considered in the asynchronous udate version. In this case, a lattice site is randomly chosen and a cell defined around it as a segment (1D) of size m or a rectangle (2D) of size (m x,m y ). It is only within this cell that the biased majority rule is alied. ime increases by t t + m/n in 1D and by t t + (m x m y )/N in 2D. hen a new site is selected randomly and the rocess iterates until a consensus oinion is obtained. III. RESULS FOR GALAM S ORIGINAL NON-LOCAL MODEL. We resent in this section an analysis of Galam s original non-local model. Our aim is to go beyond the meanfield aroach of references [7, 8, 25] by studying the system size deendence of the different magnitudes of interest. Some of the results are based on numerical simulations of the model.

4 (a) M consensus to consensus to c FIG. 2: Phase diagram of the original Galam s model in the lane ( c, M) (b) We consider N individuals that distribute themselves randomly in meeting cells whose size is uniformly distributed between 1 and M. In the notation of Eq. (1), this means that a k = 2k/(M(M +1)), k [1,M], as it follows from the fact that a k measures the robability for an individual of being in any of the k sites of a cell of size k. Initially we assign to each of the ersons any of the two ossible oinions, such that the robability of having the favored oinion is. Again, in the language of Eq. (1), we are setting P + () =. We then aly the dynamical rules of Galam s model until a consensus oinion is formed. By iteration of this rocedure, we measure the robability that the consensus oinion coincides with the favored one, +. his is recisely defined as the fraction of realizations that end u in the favored + oinion. he analysis of Eq. (1) redicts a first order hase transition in the sense that the order arameter = if < c and = 1 if > c. In Fig. 2 we show, in the arameter sace ( c,m), the regions where the two solutions, as obtained by finding numerically the nontrivial fixed oint of the recurrence Eq. (1), exists. Note that, as exected, the larger the decision cells, the closer the faith oint to 1/2. Notice also in this figure that some airs of consecutive values of M give almost the same value for c. he reason is that, for odd values of M, the rule that alies in case of a tie is used only u to the value M 1 (which is even), so odd numbers give similar values of c than the recedent even number. Since Eq. (1) neglects ossible system size fluctuations, Eq. (3) this result is only valid in the limit N. We lot in Fig. 3a the raw results of our simulations for different system sizes. he analysis carried out in Fig. 3b shows that the asymtotic results of N are ( - c ) N 1/2 FIG. 3: (a) Order arameter in Galam s non-local model. he white symbols corresond to the case M = 4 ( c = ), while the black ones to M = 5 ( c = ). he values of N range between N = 1 3 and N = 1 6. (b) he order arameter for both values of M for rescaled values of according to ( c)n 1/2. Also, it is shown a fit with the function (,N) = (1 + erf(x/1.17))/2 with the scaling variable x = ( c)/n 1/2. achieved by means of the following scaling relation ( (,N) = f ( c )N 1/2). (4) herefore, there is a region of size N 1/2 where there is a significant robability that the results differ from the infinite size limit. Wenowanalyzethetime ittakestoreachtheconsensus oinion. Strictly seaking, in the mean field aroach the number of iterations needed for Eq. (1) to converge to the fixed oint is infinity. In Ref. [7] it was adoted the criterion that the fixed oint had been reached at the

5 =.9 =.8 =.7 =.6 =.5 =.4 =.3 =.2 =.1 = N FIG. 4: ime that it takes to the system to reach the consensus state as a function of the initial robability for different system sizes. he white symbols corresond to the case M = 4 while the black ones to M = 5. he values of N range between N = 1 3 and N = 1 6. FIG. 5: ime to reach the consensus state as a function of system size for different values of and M = 4. wo different sloes can be seen for values of greater and lower than the critical value c.21. Also the redicted sloes are lotted. time such that P + () differs from the fixed oint in less that.1. In our simulations, and as in reference[14], it is natural to define the time as the finite number of stes needed to reach the consensus oinion. We lot in Fig. 4 the time as a function of the initial robability of the favored oinion. It can be seen that the time increases with increasing system size and takes its maximum value at the faith oint. A closer analysis shown in figure 5 shows that, for all values of, the time needed to reach the consensus increases logarithmically with N. It is interesting to note that the same logarithmic deendence was found in Ref. [14] for the model accounting for Brownian diffusion. A simle argument can hel to understand this logarithmic behavior. One can mimic the size deendence of the time by noticing that the definition used in the numerical simulations is equivalent to define as the value for which P + () = O(1/N) or 1 P + () = O(1/N), since 1/N is the minimum ossible value for over =. his can be now obtained by linearizing the evolution equation around any of the fixed oints,1. Defining resectivelyδ(t) = P + (t) orδ(t) = P + (t) 1, andrelacing in the evolution equation (1) P + (t +1) F[P + (t)], we obtain at first order: δ(t+1) = λδ(t), (5) whereλ F []andλ F [1],resectively. Inthislinear regime, we have simly: δ(t) = λ t δ() and according to the definition above, lnδ() lnn, (6) lnλ where the correct value of λ has to be used in each case. his is the logarithmic behavior observed in the simulations. Furthermore, the sloe of the logarithmic law will deend on the fixed oint at which the system tends. So, at one side of the critical oint, the sloe should be different than at the other. Figure 5 shows the confirmation of this rediction, where it is seen that for high values of (above the faith oint) the sloe is quite different than for lower values. For M = 4, the redicted values for λ are λ = 1/1 and λ = 1/2 for the fixed oint at P + = 1 and P + = resectively. he corresonding sloes, 1/lnλ, are and As shown in the figure, these values agree well with the measured sloes. he only discreancy is for c for which the time needed to reach consensus must include as well the time needed to leave the fixed oint c. IV. NEIGHBORHOOD MODELS: SEADY SAE PROPERIES In this section we consider the steady state roerties ofourneighborhoodmodelsdefinedinsect. IIB. Wewill see that the introduction of satial local effects leads to a very different behavior than for the non-local version of the revious section in which individuals were distributed randomly in fixed cells. In our neighborhood versions, similarly to the original Galam model, it turns out that a consensus oinion is always reached in a finite number of stes. We first consider the order arameter,, defined as the robability that the consensus oinion coincides with the favored one. Figures 6 and 7 show that, both in the 1D

6 N N FIG. 6: Order arameter for the neighborhood onedimensional system with synchronous udate for M = 5. he system size ranges between N = 1 (rightmost curve) and N = 1 4 (leftmost curve). he inset shows the validity of the scaling law = (N α ) with α =.7. FIG. 7: Same as Fig. 6 for neighborhood models with synchronous udate and regular 2D tessellation. M = 5. he system size is N = L L with L between L = 15 (rightmost curve) and L = 1 3 (leftmost curve). he inset shows the scaling law with α =.24. and the 2D cases, the order arameter is an increasing function of the initial robability of adoting the favored oinion. It is ossible to define, quite arbitrarily, the transition oint c as the one for which = 1/2. However, c deends uon the system size as a ower law c (N) N α, hence for increasing N the transition oint tends to c =. In other words, the transition disaears in the thermodynamic limit, N, and the favored oinion, in that limit, is always the selected one indeendently of the initial choice. More recisely, the data can be described by the scaling law (,N) = (N α ). (7) α D 2D-1 2D-2 2D-3 he exonent α deends on the dimension and on the maximum size M of the domains. In Fig. 8 we lot the M-deendence of α in several 1D and 2D neighborhood models. Notice that α decreases for increasing M and it deends on the system dimension, but it is basically indeendent of the local rules defined. Alternatively, for fixed we can define a critical value N c () such that a small oulation N < N c () tends not to roagate the initially minority oinion. V. NEIGHBORHOOD MODELS: DYNAMICAL EVOLUION here are several differences between the evolution in the neighborhood and non-local models. We first analyze the time needed to reach the consensus. As in Galam s original model, the data in Figs. 9 and 1 for the 1D and 2D cases, resectively, show that for fixed M d FIG. 8: Scaling exonent defined in equation (7) as a function of M d. he different curves corresond to: 1D (one-dimensional system, synchronous udate), while the bidimensional are: 2D-1 (synchronous udate, regular tessellation), 2D-2 (synchronous udate, locally grown tessellation), 2D-3 (asynchronous udate). N, the time reaches a maximum at the critical oint c (N). Notice that the numerical values for are much larger in the local models that they were in the original model. Furthermore, as shown in the insets of Figs. 9 and 1, for fixed, the time has two different growth laws according to whether the oulation N is smaller

7 N FIG. 11: Plot of the dynamical evolution of a non-local system udated according to the synchronous udate. Each frame corresond to a time, increasing from left to right and to to bottom. he system size is N = and M = 5. FIG. 9: ime to reach the consensus vs, for synchronous 1D local cells and for M = 5. Same symbols and systems sizes than in Fig. 6. he inset shows the time to reach consensus lotted against system size, for different values of, i.e. =.2 (triangles), =.1 (diamonds), =.5 (circles), =.2 (squares). wo ower-laws are observed (deending on whether N < N c() or N > N c()); for N < N c, β 1.6 and in the regime N > N c(), β N FIG. 1: ime to reach the final consensus state vs, for the 2D cells, and for M = 5. Same symbols and systems sizes than in Fig. 7. he inset shows the time to reach consensus for fixed values of : =.3 (stars), =.2 (triangles), =.1 (diamonds), =.5 (circles), =.2 (squares). he results are quite similar to those deicted in Figure 9. In this case, for N < N c(), β.6 and in the regime N > N c() (a regime only clearly seen in the cases =.3,.2), β or larger than the critical size N c (). For N < N c () the time increases as a ower-law N β of the system size N with β = 1.6(.6) for d = 1(2). For N > N c () the data are comatible with a ower law with smaller exonents, although it can not be comletely excluded a logarithmic deendence in this case. In Fig. 11 we lot several snashots corresonding to the evolution according to Galam s original rules. It is seen that the evolution is very fast and at each time ste the number of eole favoring a articular oinion increases but due to the non-locality of the rules, one can not see any structured attern of growth. When using the neighborhood rules, however, it can be seen that, after a very short transient in which domains are formed, the ulterior evolution is by modification of the interfaces between the two ossible tyes of domains. Figure 12 deicts the dynamical evolution of the synchronous 1D version of the neighborhood model. It shows a linear growth of the size of domains of favored oinion. It is easy to redict the sloe of the linear growth according to the following reasoning: the only evolution is roduced if the discussion cell intercets two domains with different oinions. Let us consider the osition of an interface at time t =. For cells of odd size, the bias rule does not aly and the interface does not move in the average. For cells of even size, the bias rule acts only in one case and it is easy to show that the location of the interface, on the average, increases by 1/2. herefore, the size of the domain of the favored oinion increase as t/2. Averaging for an equirobability of having cells of size between 1 an M, yields a linear growth βt with M ][ M 2 2 β = 2[ +1] M(M +1), (8) where [x] once again denotes the integer art of x. he validity of this result for M = 5 is shown in Fig. 12. he 2D snashots of the dynamical evolution, see Fig. 13, showthat asin the 1Dversion,domains areformed in an initial transient, and after this, grow by interface dynamics. o characterize the growth of the characteristic

8 8 FIG.12: Plotofthedynamicalevolutionofalocal 1Dsystem. Each row corresonds to a time, increasing from bottom to to. he system size is N = 5 and M = 5. It is also shown the redicted sloe given by Eq. (8) he inset amlifies a small region for a short time evolution. size of the domains we calculate a characteristic radius R c defined as R 2 c = i δ +(i) r i 2 i δ +(i) ( iδ +(i) r i i δ +(i) ) 2. (9) Where δ + (i) is 1 if individual i suorts oinion +, otherwise and r i is the osition in the square lattice of i th individual. Figure 14 shows that this characteristic linear dimension grows linearly with time as in the 1D model. he growth of domains in 1D and 2D occurs for those domains whose initial characteristic size is larger than a critical one R. When the initial size is larger than R, domains grow until they take over the whole system, while smaller domains shrink toward extinction. he quantitative calculation of the critical radius starts by lacing a unique circular island of radius r of minority eole surrounded by the majority and watching it grow or shrink. his initial condition is quite different of that of a random initial distribution. In order to avoid finite size effects, one has to be careful to choose a system size N such that the initial density = πr 2 /N is lower than the critical one, c. In the inset of Fig. 15 we show that (r), the robability that an initial circle of radius r grows, is indeed indeendent of system size. We define the critical radius as the value of r such that (r) =.5. Figure 15 shows that the value of the critical radius increases linearly with M, both in 1D and in 2D models. FIG. 13: he dynamical evolution of a 2D local model udated according to the asynchronous rule is shown. In the simulation N = 4 4, M = 5 and =.2. he time increases from left to right and from to to bottom. he snashots corresond, resectively to =, 2, 52, 16, 276, 394, 594 and 818. R c 4 2 M = 1 M = t FIG. 14: Characteristic radius, R c averaged over 1 indeendent runs as a function of time for a two-dimensional system udated according to the synchronous udate and regular tessellation. R c is shown to grow linearly with time for different values of M. he initial condition is taken as a single circular domain of minority suorters with a radius R > R. VI. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS We have revisited Galam s model [7, 8] of minority oinion sreading and introduced related neighborhood models that incororate satial local effects in the interactions. hese models share basic characteristics with the bounded neighborhood and satial roximity mod- els of Schelling [24]. In both cases we have considered in detail the role of system size in the roerties of the system. For the original nonlocal version [7, 8], we have found that the transition from initial minority final dominance to initial minority disaearance is smeared out in a region of size N 1/2, while the time it takes to reach

9 9 (a) R * (b) R * r M r 2D-1 2D-2 2D M FIG. 15: Critical radius vs M, for the different versions of the neighborhood systems: (a) 1D model. (b) 2D-1, 2D-2, 2D-3 as defined in Fig. 8. he insets show the robability (r) that an initial domain of radius r grows; (a) corresonds to M = 15 and (b) is for the 2D-1 model for M = 7, both for different system sizes. comleteconsensusincreasesaslnn, asin Stauffer sercolation model [14]. In our local neighborhood models, we have considered 1D and 2D lattices with regular and locally grown tessellations, both with synchronous and asynchronous udates. All these local versions behave qualitatively in the same way. he most imortant finding is that the threshold value for the initial minority concentration c decreases as N α, such that the transition from initial minority sreading to majority dominance disaears in the thermodynamic limit N. he neighborhood models are, in this sense, more efficient to sread an initially minority oinion. However, while a nonlocal model is very fast in sreading a rumor, the corresonding relaxation times to reach consensus in the neighborhood models are much larger since they turn out to increase with a ower of the system size N. We have also shown that the fact that lim N c = is due to the existence of a critical size for a satial domain of minority suorters. For large enough systems there is always an over-critical domain that sreads and occuies the whole system, with a characteristic average radius growing linearly with time. his critical size domain has some analogies with the critical nucleus of nucleation theory [27], but it has different characteristics. In classical nucleation the existence of a critical radius is due to the cometition between surface tension and different bulk energy between the two ossible homogeneous states. he concet of critical nucleus in this context is not meaningful for one-dimensional systems for which no surface tension exists. An over-critical drolet aears as a rare fluctuation in the bulk of a metastable state and it then grows deterministically. Noisy erturbations in the growth dynamics are generally a second order effect. In our case over-critical domains aear in the random initial condition. he critical size is here an average concet resulting from the cometition of the bias favoring the minority oinion in case of a tie (analog of bulk energy difference) and a stochastic dynamics that might lead to the disaearance of the minority domain, surface tension being a second order effect. Critical size means here equal robability for the domain to sread or to collase. he existence of this critical size clearly shows an imortant difference between tyical statistical hysics roblems and sociohysical ones. In the former case, one is mostly concerned with the thermodynamic limit of large systems, while these findings emhasize the imortant role of system size in the latter case. Acknowledgments We thank P.Colet, V. M. Eguíluz and E. Hernández García for fruitful discussions. We acknowledge financial suort from MCY (Sain) and FEDER through the rojects BFM C2-1 and BFM HSW acknowledges artial suort from ANPCy, Argentine, and thanks the MECyD, Sain, for an award within the Sabbatical Program for Visiting Professors, and to the Universitat de les Illes Balears for the kind hositality extended to him. [1] W. Weidlich, Sociodynamics-A systematic aroach to mathematical modeling in social sciences (aylor & Francis, London, 22). [2] P. Ball, Utoia theory, Physics World (October 23). [3] D. Stauffer, Introduction to Statistical Physics outside Physics, Physica A336, 1 (24).

10 1 [4] S. Galam, Sociohysics: a ersonal testimony, Physica A336, 49 (24). [5] S. Galam, B. Choard, A. Masselot and M. Droz, Eur. Phys. J. B 4 (1998) [6] S. Galam and J. D. Zucker, Physica A 287 (2) [7] S. Galam, Eur. Phys. J. B 25 (22) 43. [8] S. Galam, Physica A 32 (23) [9] G. Deffuant, D. Neau, F. Amblard and G. Weisbuch, Adv. Comlex Syst. (2) 3, 87; G. Weisbuch, G. Deffuant, F. Amblard and J.-P. Nadal, Comlexity (22) 7, 55. [1] R. Hegselmann and U. Krausse, J. of Artif. Soc. and Social Sim. 5 (22) 3, htt:// [11] K. Sznajd-Weron and J. Sznajd, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C11 (2) 1157; K. Sznajd-Weron, Phys. Rev. E 66 (22) 46131; K. Sznajd-Weron and J. Sznajd, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C13 (2) 115. [12] F. Slanina and H. Lavicka, Eur. Phys. J. B 35 (23) 279. [13] D. Stauffer, A.O. Souza and S. Moss de Oliveira, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C11 (2) 1239; D. Stauffer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C13 (22) 315; D. Stauffer and P. C. M. Oliveira, Eur. Phys. J. B 3 (22) 587. [14] D.Stauffer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C13 (22) 975. [15] D. Stauffer, J. of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 5 (21) 1, htt:// D. Stauffer, How to convince others?: Monte Carlo simulations of the Sznajd model, in Proc. Conf. on the Monte Carlo Method in the Physical Sciences, J.E. Gubernatis, Ed., (AIP, in ress), cond-mat/37133; D. Stauffer, Comuting in Science and Engineering 5 (23) 71. [16] C. Castellano, M. Marsili, and A. Vesignani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2) 3536; D. Vilone, A. Vesignani and C. Castellano, Eur. Phys. J. B 3 (22) 399. [17] K. Klemm, V. M. Eguiluz, R. oral and M. San Miguel, Phys. Rev. E 67 (23) [18] K. Klemm, V. M. Eguiluz, R. oral and M. San Miguel, Phys. Rev. E 67 (23) 4511R. [19] K. Klemm, V. M. Eguiluz, R. oral and M. San Miguel, Globalization, olarization and cultural drift J. Economic Dynamics and Control (in ress). [2] P.L. Kraivsky and S. Redner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9(23) [21] M. Mobilia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (23) [22] M. Mobilia and S. Redner, cond-mat/3661 (23). [23] M. Granovetter, American J. Sociology 83 (1978) 142. [24].C. Schelling, J. Math. Sociology 1 (1971) ;. C. Schelling, Micromotives and Macrobehavior (Norton and Co., New York, 1978) [25] S. Galam, Contrarian deterministic effect: the hung elections scenario, Physica A333, 453 (24). [26] D. Stauffer and S.A. Sá Martins, Simulation of Galam s contrarian oinions in ercolative lattices, Physica A334, 558 (24). [27] J. D. Gunton, M. San Miguel and P. S. Sahni in Phase ransitions and Critical Phenomena, vol. 8, edited by C. Domb and J. Lebowitz (Academic Press, London,1983). [28] hese exressions correct a misrint in Eqs. (4,5) of reference [7].