- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review E

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Planned behavior, perceptual biases, and the dynamics of collective action

Rishi Dadlani1,2,*, John S. McAlister3,2,*,†, Alice C. Schwarze4, Mari Kawakatsu5,6, Sarah Iams7, Tahra L. Eissa8,9,‡, and Nina H. Fefferman10,11,2,‡

  • *Joint first authors.
  • †Contact author: jm9097@princeton.edu
  • ‡Joint senior authors.
PDF

Phys. Rev. E 114, 044308 – Published 7 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/l3vx-x5yf

Abstract

Classical models of collective behavior often assume that emergent dynamics result from external and observable interactions among individuals. However, how collective dynamics in human populations depend on the internal psychological processes of individuals remains underexplored. Here, we develop a mathematical model to investigate the effects of internal psychology on dynamics of collective action. Our model is grounded in the theory of planned behavior—a well-established conceptual framework in social psychology that links intrinsic beliefs to behavior. By incorporating temporal biases in social perception and individual differences in decision-making processes, we find that the interplay between internal and external drivers of behavior can produce diverse outcomes, ranging from partial participation in action-taking to rapid or delayed behavioral cascades. Predicting these outcomes is, in general, challenging because distinct outcomes can be preceded by transient dynamics that are qualitatively similar to one another. Nevertheless, in the case of two individuals, we derive a complete, analytical classification of long-term outcomes into three mutually exclusive categories. Our model provides a useful test bed for methods that aim to predict the emergence of collective action, and it lays the groundwork for studying the nuanced dynamics of collective human behavior arising from the interaction between psychological processes and observable actions.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (37)

  1. R. M. Bond, J. E. Settle, C. J. Fariss, J. J. Jones, and J. H. Fowler, Social endorsement cues and political participation, Political Commun. 34, 261 (2017).
  2. W. Jennings, G. Stoker, H. Bunting, V. O. Valgarðsson, J. Gaskell, D. Devine, L. McKay, and M. C. Mills, Lack of trust, conspiracy beliefs, and social media use predict COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, Vaccines 9, 593 (2021).
  3. R. Cont and J.-P. Bouchaud, Herd behavior and aggregate fluctuations in financial markets, Macroecon. Dyn. 4, 170 (2000).
  4. P. Rollin and S. Bamberg, It's all up to my fellow citizens. descriptive norms as a decisive mediator in the relationship between infrastructure and mobility behavior, Front. Psychol. 11, 610343 (2021).
  5. B. Beckage, L. J. Gross, K. Lacasse, E. Carr, S. S. Metcalf, J. M. Winter, P. D. Howe, N. Fefferman, T. Franck, A. Zia, et al., Linking models of human behaviour and climate alters projected climate change, Nat. Clim. Change 8, 79 (2018).
  6. M. J. Silk, S. Carrignon, R. A. Bentley, and N. H. Fefferman, Observations and conversations: How communities learn about infection risk can impact the success of non-pharmaceutical interventions against epidemics, BMC Public Health 22, 13 (2022).
  7. Y. Katz, K. Tunstrøm, C. C. Ioannou, C. Huepe, and I. D. Couzin, Inferring the structure and dynamics of interactions in schooling fish, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 18720 (2011).
  8. W. Bialek, A. Cavagna, I. Giardina, T. Mora, E. Silvestri, M. Viale, and A. M. Walczak, Statistical mechanics for natural flocks of birds, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 4786 (2012).
  9. K. Tunstrøm, Y. Katz, C. C. Ioannou, C. Huepe, M. J. Lutz, and I. D. Couzin, Collective states, multistability and transitional behavior in schooling fish, PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1002915 (2013).
  10. X. Wang, L. Zhang, Y. Lin, Y. Zhao, and X. Hu, Computational models and optimal control strategies for emotion contagion in the human population in emergencies, Knowledge-Based Syst. 109, 35 (2016).
  11. I. Iacopini, G. Petri, A. Barrat, and V. Latora, Simplicial models of social contagion, Nat. Commun. 10, 2485 (2019).
  12. G. Schwenk and T. Reimer, Simple heuristics in complex networks: Models of social influence, J. Artif. Soc. Social Simul. 11, 4 (2008).
  13. P. Wang, L.-J. Zhang, X.-J. Xu, and G. Xiao, Heuristic strategies for persuader selection in contagions on complex networks, PLoS One 12, e0169771 (2017).
  14. I. Ajzen, The theory of planned behavior, Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179 (1991).
  15. I. Ajzen, From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior, in Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior (Springer, Berlin, 1985), pp. 11–39.
  16. D. Feinstein and E. Patel, Max-plus opinion dynamics with temporal confidence, arXiv:2101.10805.
  17. J. Lorenz, Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence: A survey, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 18, 1819 (2007).
  18. M. A. Porter and J. P. Gleeson, Dynamical systems on networks: A tutorial, Front. Appl. Dyn. Syst.: Rev. Tutorials 4 (2016).
  19. W. Chu, Q. Li, and M. A. Porter, Inference of interaction kernels in mean-field models of opinion dynamics, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 84, 1096 (2024).
  20. C. Koertje and H. Sayama, Collective group drift in a partial-differential-equation-based opinion dynamics model with biased perception kernels, Phys. Rev. E 109, 034304 (2024).
  21. H. Sayama and J. Yamanoi, Beyond social fragmentation: Coexistence of cultural diversity and structural connectivity is possible with social constituent diversity, in Proceedings of the 6th International Winter School and Conference on Network Science (NetSci-X'20) (Springer, Berlin, 2020), pp. 171–181.
  22. S. Bullock and H. Sayama, Agent heterogeneity mediates extremism in an adaptive social network model, in Proceedings of the 2023 Artificial Life Conference: Ghost in the Machine (ALIFE'23) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2023).
  23. B. B. Murdock, Jr., The serial position effect of free recall, J. Exp. Psychol. 64, 482 (1962).
  24. P. E. Tetlock, Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions, Soc. Psych. Quarterly 46, 285 (1983).
  25. L. F. Abbott, Lapicque's introduction of the integrate-and-fire model neuron (1907), Brain Res. Bull. 50, 303 (1999).
  26. N. Brunel, Dynamics of sparsely connected networks of excitatory and inhibitory spiking neurons, J. Comput. Neurosci. 8, 183 (2000).
  27. B. Ballintyn, B. Shlaer, and P. Miller, Spatiotemporal discrimination in attractor networks with short-term synaptic plasticity, J. Comput. Neurosci. 46, 279 (2019).
  28. A. J. Greene, C. Prepscius, and W. B. Levy, Primacy versus recency in a quantitative model: Activity is the critical distinction, Learn. Memory 7, 48 (2000).
  29. F. Fiebig and A. Lansner, A spiking working memory model based on Hebbian short-term potentiation, J. Neurosci. 37, 83 (2017).
  30. W. D. Crano, Primacy versus recency in retention of information and opinion change, J. Soc. Psych. 101, 87 (1977).
  31. N. Miller and D. T. Campbell, Recency and primacy in persuasion as a function of the timing of speeches and measurements., J. Abnormal Soc. Psych. 59, 1 (1959).
  32. J. H. Han, G. Davies, and A. Grimes, Recency effects in the buffering of negative news by corporate social responsibility advertising, CCIJ 26, 382 (2021).
  33. O. Arikan, A. E. Gozluklu, G. H. Kim, and H. Sakaguchi, Primacy in stock market participation: The effect of initial returns on market re-entry decisions, Eur. J. Finance 25, 883 (2019).
  34. E. N. Garbinsky, C. K. Morewedge, and B. Shiv, Interference of the end: Why recency bias in memory determines when a food is consumed again, Psychol. Sci. 25, 1466 (2014).
  35. R. P. Bhargave and N. V. Montgomery, My recency, our primacy: How social connection influences evaluations of sequences, J. Behav. Decision Making 28, 382 (2015).
  36. Y. Li and N. Epley, When the best appears to be saved for last: Serial position effects on choice, J. Behav. Decision Making 22, 378 (2009).
  37. R. Dadlani, J. S. McAlister, A. Schwarze, M. Kawakatsu, S. Iams, T. Eissa, and N. H. Fefferman, Temporally-biased planned behavior [Computer software], Zenodo, 2026, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22713604.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 114, 044308– Published 7 October, 2026
  • Received 21 October 2025
  • Revised 10 July 2026
  • Accepted 9 September 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation