can take real values and it is a measure of the Mass Media strength to act over all agents in the society. Then, the super-agent s has always a non-zero probability (min( p$_{is}$ ) = ϵ/ ( F + ϵ )) to be included in the set of influence of the agent i . This probability is proportional to the strength parameter ϵ and its non-zero value means a clever Mass Media which designs its publicity actions to have always something in common with the target of influence. Once the agent i is randomly selected and the current influence set I$_{i}$ is established (including i and s ), an agent i ’s feature is selected at random with a trait value different from the corresponding value of at least one agent of the set I$_{i}$ in the same feature. The decision of which trait value agent i adopts (if any change takes place) is done in such a way that agent i imitates (or copy) the most common trait in the set I$_{i}$ for the feature selected. If, for example, in the situation depicted in Fig. 1, the feature selected on agent i were the second (that in the middle), this trait value ( σ$_{i,}$ 2 = 1) will be changed to σ$_{i,}$ 2 = 0 due to highest frequency of this last value in the set I$_{i}$. If the feature selected were the third (from top to down), the value σ$_{i,}$ 3 = 1 will remain due to the highest frequency of this value on the set I$_{i}$. The last possible case represented in Fig. 1 occurs if the first feature were selected. In this case, on the set of influence I$_{i}$, we have the same frequency of appearance for the values 0 and 1. In this situation, one of the two values is chosen at random and then, the trait value σ$_{i,}$ 1 = 1 in agent i could remain with probability 1 / 2 or changed to σ$_{i,}$ 1 = 0 with the same probability. Then, in general the trait value of agent i is changed to the value of the corresponding trait with the highest frequency of appearance on I$_{i}$. If there are more than one, it is changed to one of them with equal probability. The trait value of agent i does not change if this is the only one with the highest frequency of appearance on I$_{i}$. At the same time, we have also included interaction errors as well as copying errors, just as in Ref. [21]. The interaction error relaxes the previous deterministic procedure used in former works of Axelrod model when deciding the possible interaction between two agents (dyadic interaction). Both copying and interaction errors can randomly alter the outcome of an interaction event. The interaction error acts over the selection procedure as follow: if the normal procedure of selecting an agent j for being included in the set of influence I$_{i}$ results in its inclusion, then with probability r ′ the neighbor j is removed from I$_{i}$. If the neighbor has not been selected into the influence set, then with probability r ′ the agent j will be included into I$_{i}$. This error creates the possibility that cultural influence occurs across the boundary of two disconnected cultural regions if a neighbor with zero overlap is 7