PCSY-D-25-00040

A Dynamic Model of Integration

PLOS Complex Systems

Dear Dr. Johnson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Complex Systems. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Complex Systems's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Sep 02 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at complexsystems@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcsy/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Annamaria Ficara, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

Annamaria Ficara

Academic Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

Hocine Cherifi

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Complex Systems

Journal Requirements:

1. We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Complex Systems’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Complex Systems does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors present a thoughtful extension of Schelling's segregation model by incorporating adaptive tolerance, media influence, and non-preference-based movement. The model is a valuable contribution to formal explorations of integration dynamics, especially in highlighting the role of non-conformity and positive media environments in promoting integrated equilibria. That said, several foundational assumptions require further clarification and discussion to strengthen the paper's theoretical framing and applicability.

First, the assumption of equal group status, while methodologically convenient, should be explicitly acknowledged as a significant simplification. In real-world contexts, ethnic and social groups often differ markedly in status, access to resources, and institutional power. These asymmetries shape not only interpersonal contact and migration patterns but also how individuals interpret and respond to both media portrayals and neighborhood composition. A more nuanced discussion of this limitation would help contextualize the model's results.

Second, the role of media is modeled in a highly simplified and symmetric way. Media exposure is treated as a uniform, direct influence on agent tolerance, regardless of group membership or social positioning. However, empirical research shows that perceptions and stereotypes are largely shaped by observable role distributions and repeated patterns of structural inequality. A key point worth discussing is how media exposure often does not neutralize stereotypes but rather serves to better disseminate already existing ones, reinforcing rather than reducing intergroup bias.

Additionally, the paper's title is overly broad and vague. "A Dynamic Model of Integration" gives little indication of the paper's specific scope - namely, its foundation in Schelling's framework, the incorporation of adaptive intolerance, or the role of media. A more precise title would better signal the paper's contributions and help situate it within the relevant literature on segregation modeling and social simulation.

To be clear, the model need not capture every nuance of social reality to be valuable. As a formal tool, it offers important insights into how certain psychological and informational mechanisms can influence group dynamics. Nonetheless, the paper would benefit significantly from a more explicit articulation of its simplifying assumptions, particularly regarding group equality and institutional context, and a clearer distinction between perceptual adaptation and structural constraint.

Summary: This is a well-constructed and timely modeling effort that contributes meaningfully to the literature on integration dynamics. However, its conclusions rest on assumptions - particularly about group symmetry and media effects -that should be more thoroughly examined. Clarifying these theoretical boundaries and adopting a more specific title would improve both the accessibility and relevance of the paper.

Chen, V., Ahmed, S., & Chib, A. (2021). The role of social media behaviors and structural intergroup relations on immigrant stereotypes. International Journal Of Communication, 15(24), 4085–4108.

Eagly, A. H., & Koenig, A. M. (2021). The vicious cycle linking stereotypes and social roles. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(4), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211013775

Schaller, M., Conway, L. G. III, & Tanchuk, T. L. (2002). Selective pressures on the once and future contents of ethnic stereotypes: Effects of the communicability of traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 861–877. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.861

Reviewer #2: The manuscript proposes an extension of Schelling's segregation model by incorporating mechanisms such as adaptive tolerance, media influence, and non-racial mobility. While the manuscript provides a meaningful contribution to the modeling of social integration, several important methodological limitations should be addressed to enhance the robustness and clarity of the findings.

1. Absence of movement rules linked to the reaction function. The manuscript introduces a mathematically defined reaction function that governs how agents adjust their intolerance based on neighborhood composition. However, it lacks a clear explanation of how this tolerance adjustment influences or conditions agents’ relocation behavior.

2. All simulations are conducted with a fixed network density of 87.5%, without sensitivity analysis. A sensitivity analysis across a range of densities is necessary.

3. The heatmaps in Figures 3-8 appear to derive from single simulation runs, raising concerns about statistical reliability.

4. Over-simplified modeling of media effect and non-racial-move mechanisms. The media influence parameter g(j) is modeled as a static scalar across agents neglecting individual variation and temporal variation. Similarly, the non-racial-move mechanism is implemented as a fixed random probability, lacking ties to economic, or environmental drivers of mobility.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript addresses an important topic and offers valuable insights into integration dynamics through formal modeling. The incorporation of adaptive tolerance and media effects represents a meaningful extension of classical segregation models. However, the work requires substantial revision to address theoretical oversimplifications, methodological gaps, and presentation issues before it can make its intended contribution to the literature.

1. The current title "A Dynamic Model of Integration" is overly broad and fails to communicate the paper's specific contributions. A more precise title highlighting the Schelling framework extension, adaptive tolerance mechanisms, or media effects would better position the work within relevant literature.

2. The equal group status assumption, fails to account for the substantial differences in status, resources, and institutional power that characterize real ethnic and social groups. These asymmetries fundamentally influence contact patterns, migration behaviors, and responses to media representation. A more comprehensive discussion of these limitations and their implications for model interpretation is essential.

3. The treatment of media effects as uniform across agents (parameter g(j)) represents another significant oversimplification. Empirical evidence suggests that media exposure frequently amplifies rather than reduces intergroup stereotypes, with effects varying considerably across individuals and contexts. The current model neglects these crucial dynamics and assumes a neutralizing effect that may not reflect reality.

4. The cubic reaction function (Equation 1) appears to be chosen without theoretical or empirical justification. The authors admit "It is unlikely that we have formulated the exact function for how individuals adjust their tolerances" but don't adequately justify why this particular functional form was selected.

5. The stopping criteria (standard deviations within 1 for percent-similar and 0.5 for mean intolerance) seem arbitrary and may not capture true equilibrium states.

6. The study's robustness is undermined by its reliance on a single grid configuration (51×51), insufficient exploration of population density variations, and the absence of scalability analysis across different population magnitudes.

7. Doesn't adequately differentiate itself from existing literature.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

A Dynamic Model of Segregation and Integration: Incorporating Adaptive Intolerance, Media Bias, and Conformity into the Schelling Framework

PCSY-D-25-00040R1

Dear Dr. Johnson,

We're pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you'll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you'll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcsy/ click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support at https://plos.my.site.com/s/.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact complexsystems@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Annamaria Ficara, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

--------------------

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Complex Systems's publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

--------------------

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Complex Systems does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The authors have implemented the revisions requested by the reviewers, and the paper can be approved with a minor revision. A minor revision concerns the justification of the text on the page.

--------------------

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: None

Reviewer #3: No

--------------------