Sociophysics: A review of galam models

International Journal of Modern Physics C

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 409-440

  Galam, Serge ^a  

^a Centre de Recherche en Epistemologie Appliquee Ecole Polytechnique   (France)

Author keywords

Bottom up voting; Coalitions; Group decision making; Hierarchical systems; Opinion dynamics; Sociophysics; Terrorism

Indexed keywords

EID: 44349194525     PISSN: 01291831     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1142/S0129183108012297     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (71)

1. S. Galam, Majority rule, hierarchical structures and democratic totalitarism: A statistical approach, J. Math. Psychol. 30, 426-434 (1986).
2. S. Galam, Social paradoxes of majority rule voting and renormalization group, J. Stat. Phys. 61, 943-951 (1990).
3. S. Galam, Political paradoxes of majority rule voting and hierarchical systems, Int. J. General Syst. 18, 191-200 (1991).
4. S. Galam, Real space renormalization group and social paradoxes in hierarchical organizations, Models of Self-organization in Complex Systems (Moses), Vol. 64 (Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1991), pp. 53-59.
5. S. Galam, Paradoxes de la rgle majoritaire dans les systmes hiérarchiques, Revue de Bibliologie 38, 62-68 (1993).
6. S. Galam, Application of statistical physics to politics, Physica A 274, 132-139 (1999).
7. S. Galam, Real space renormalization group and totalitarian paradox of majority rule voting, Physica A 285, 66-76 (2000).
8. S. Galam and S. Wonczak, Dictatorship from majority rule voting, Eur. Phys. J. B 18, 183-186 (2000).
9. S. Galam, Democratic voting in hierarchical structures, in Application of Simulation to Social Sciences, eds. G. Ballot and G. Weisbush (Hermes, Paris, 2000), pp. 171-180.
10. S. Galam, Building a dictatorship from majority rule voting, in ECAI 2000 Modelling Artificial Societies, eds. C. Jonker et al. (Humboldt U. Press, 2001), pp. 23-26.
11. S. Galam, How to become a. dictator, in Scaling and Disordered Systems: International Workshop and Collection of Articles Honoring Professor Antonio Coniglio on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, eds. F. Family, M. Daoud, H. J. Herrmann and H. E. Stanley (World Scientific, Singapore, 2002), pp. 243-249.
12. S. Galam, Dictatorship effect of the majority rule voting in hierarchical systems, in Self-Organization and Evolution of Social Systems, Chap. 8, ed. C. Hemelrijk (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
13. S. Galam, Stability of leadership in bottom-up hierarchical organizations, J. Soc. Complexity 2, 62-75 (2006).
14. S. Galam, Le dangereux seuil critique du FN, Le Monde 30, 17 (1997).
15. S. Galam, Crier, mais pourquoi, Libération 17, 6 (1998).
16. S. Galam, Le vote majoritaire est-il totalitaire? Pour La Science, Hors série, Les Mathématiques Sociales 90-94 (1999).
17. S. Galam, Citation in front page of the Figaro in an editorial from Jean d'Ormesson, Le Figaro 4, 1 (2002).
18. S. Galam, Risque de raz-de-marée FN, Entretien, France Soir, La Une et 35 (2002).
19. S. Galam, Le FN au microscope, Le Minotaure 6, 88-91 (2004).
20. S. Galam, Y. Gefen and Y. Shapir, Sociophysics: A mean behavior model for the process of strike, Math. J. Social. 9, 1-13 (1982).
21. S. Galam and S. Moscovici, Towards a theory of collective phenomena: Consensus and attitude changes in groups, Euro. J. Soc. Psy. 21, 49-74 (1991).
22. S. Galam and S. Moscovici, Compromise versus polarization in group decision making, in Defense Decision Making (Springer-Verlag, 1991), pp. 40-51.
23. S. Galam and S. Moscovici, A theory of collective decision making in hierarchical and non-hierarchical groups, Russ. Psy. J. 13, 93-103 (1993).
24. S. Galam and S. Moscovici, Towards a theory of collective phenomena: II. Conformity and power, Euro. J. Soc. Psy. 24, 481-495 (1994).
25. S. Galam and S. Moscovici, Towards a theory of collective phenomena: III. Conflicts and forms of power, Euro. J. Soc. Psy. 25, 217-229 (1995).
26. S. Galam, When humans interact like atoms, in Understanding Group Behavior, Vol. 1, Chap. 12, eds. Davis and Witte (Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, 1996), pp. 293-312.
27. S. Galam, Rational group decision making: A random field Ising model at T = 0, Physica A 238, 66-80 (1997).
28. S. Galam and J. D. Zucker, From individual choice to group decision making, Physica A 287, 644-659 (2000).
29. S. Galam, Universality of group decision making, in Traffic and Granular Flow '99 D, eds. Helbing et al. (Springer, Berlin, 2000).
30. S. Galam, Fragmentation versus stability in bimodal coalitions, Physica A 230, 174-188 (1996).
31. S. Galam, Comment on A landscape theory of aggregation. Brit. J. Polit. Sci. 28, 411-412 (1998).
32. S. Galam, Spontaneous coalitions forming: A model from spin glass, eds. I. Kondor and J. Kertesz (Budapest, 1999), arXiv:cond-mat/9901022.
33. R. Florian and S. Galam, Optimizing conflicts in the formation of strategic alliances, Eur. Phys. J. B 16, 189-1941 (2000).
34. S. Galam, Spontaneous coalition forming. Why some are stable? in 5th International Conference on Cellular Automata for Research and Industry, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2493 (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2002), pp. 1-9.
35. S. Galam, The September 11 attack: A percolation of individual passive support, Eur. Phys. J. B 26, 269-272 (2002).
36. S. Galam and A. Mauger, On reducing terrorism power: A hint from physics, Physica A 323, 695-704 (2003).
37. S. Galam, Global physics: From percolation to terrorism: Guerilla warfare and clandestine activities, Physica A 330, 139-149 (2003).
38. S. Galam, La detection des réseaux terroristes, Stratégic et décision: La crise du 11 septembre, General Loup Francart et Isabelle Dufour, Economica, Paris (2002).
39. S. Galam, Terrorisme et percolation, Pour La Science 306, 90-93 (2003).
40. S. Galam, Global terrorism versus social permeability to underground activities, in Econophysics and Sociophysics: Trends and Perspectives, Chap. 14, eds. B. K. Chakrabarti, A. Chakraborti and A. Chatterjee (Wiley-VCH Verlag, 2006).
41. S. Galam and A. Mauger, Universal formula for percolation thresholds, Phys. Rev. E 53, 2177-2181 (1996).
42. S. Galam, B. Chopard, A. Masselot and M. Droz, Competing species dynamics, Eur. Phys. J. B 4, 529-531 (1998).
43. B. Chopard, M. Droz and S. Galam, An evolution theory in finite size systems, Eur. Phys. J. B 16, 575-578 (2000).
44. S. Galam, Minority opinion spreading in random geometry, Eur. Phys. J. B 25, 403-406 (2002).
45. S. Galam, B. Chopard and M. Droz, Killer geometries in competing species dynamics, Physica A 314, 256-263 (2002).
46. S. Galam, Modeling rumors: The no plane pentagon french Hoax case, Physica A 320, 571-580 (2003).
47. S. Galam, Contrarian deterministic effect: The hung elections scenario, Physica A 333, 453-460 (2004).
48. S. Galam, The dynamics of minority opinion in democratic debate, Physica A 336, 56-62 (2004).
49. S. Galam and B. Chopard, Threshold Phenomena, versus Killer clusters in bimodal competion for standards, in Cognitive Economics - An Interdisciplinary Approach, eds. P. Bourgine and J.-P. Nadal (Springer, 2004), pp. 429-440.
50. S. Galam and A. Vignes, Fashion, novelty and optimality: An application from physics, Physica A 351, 605-619 (2005).
51. S. Gekle, L. Peliti and S. Galam, Opinion dynamics in a three-choice system, Eur. Phys. J. B 45, 569-575 (2005).
52. S. Galam, Heterogeneous beliefs, segregation, and extremism in the making of public opinions, Phys. Rev. E 71, 046123-1-5 (2005).
53. S. Galam, Local dynamics vs. social mechanisms: A unifying frame, Europhys. Lett. 70, 705-711 (2005).
54. C. Borghesi and S. Galam, Chaotic, staggered, and polarized dynamics in opinion forming: The contrarian effect, Phys. Rev. E 73(1-9), 066118 (2006).
55. S. Galam, Opinion dynamics, minority spreading and heterogeneous beliefs, in Econo-physics and Sociophysics: Trends and Perspectives, Chap. 13, eds. B. K. Chakrabarti, A. Chakraborti and A. Chatterjee (Wiley-VCH Verlag, 2006).
56. S. Galam, From 2000 Bush-Gore to 2006 Italian elections: Voting at fifty-fifty and the contrarian effect, Qual. Quant. J. 41, 579-589 (2007).
57. S. Galam and F. Jacobs, The role of inflexible minorities in the breaking of democratic opinion dynamics, Physica A 381, 366-376 (2007).
58. S. Galam and J. P. Radomski, Cancerous tumor: The high frequency of a rare event, Phys. Rev. E 63, 51907-51911 (2001).
59. S. Pajot and S. Galam, Coexistence of opposite global social feelings: The case of percolation driven insecurity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 13, 1375-1385 (2002).
60. S. Galam, Les réformes sont-elles impossibles? Le Monde 28 , 18-19 (2000).
61. S. Galam, Quand les réformes démocratiques butent sur les lois physiques, Entretien, Sciences et Vie 1017, 92-97 (2002).
62. S. Galam, Notre avenir en équations, Entretien, Le Minotaure 2, 554-559 (2003).
63. S. Galam, Il faut bien plus qu'une majorité , Tribune, Décisio No. 7 (www.decisio.info), January (2004).
64. S. Galam, L'opinion se modélise, Le 8 d'Entrecom 2, 5-6 (2004).
65. S. Galam, Les mathématiques s'invitent dans le débat européen, interview by P. Lehir, Le Monde, Samedi 26 February, 23 (2005).
66. S. Galam, Les mathématiques s'invitent dans le débat européen", Le Monde, Lundi 11 April, 15 (2005), reproduced in the international weekly selection of Le Monde 2005.
67. S. Galam, Les mathématiques s'invitent dans le débat européen, Le Monde, Lundi 11 April, 15 (2005), Reproduced in "TA NEA", Greek daily newspaper, March 3 (2005).
68. S. Galam, Pourquoi des élections si serrées? Le Monde 20, (2006).
69. S. Galam, Sociophysics: A personal testimony, Physica A 336, 49-55 (2004).
70. S. Galam, Local dynamics vs. social mechanisms: A unifying frame, Europhys. Lett. 70, 705-711 (2005).
71. A. O. Sousa, K. Malarz and S. Galam, Reshuffling spins with short range interactions: When sociophysics produces physical results, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 16, 1507-1517 (2005).