Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human Societies: Understanding Observed Social Phenomena

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Simulating Social Complexity

Part of the book series: Understanding Complex Systems ((UCS))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This embedding has advantages as well, such as prior knowledge.

  2. 2.

    The intentions of the authors themselves in terms of what they thought of the simulation itself are difficult to ascertain and varied between the individuals, however this was certainly how the work was perceived.

  3. 3.

    Or those whose vested interests may have led them to maintain the status quo concerning the desirability of continual economic growth.

  4. 4.

    For details of the wider project connected with these papers, see the Village Ecodynamics Project, http://village.anth.wsu.edu.

  5. 5.

    Abstraction can be defined as “ignoring or hiding details to capture some kind of commonality between different instances” (Free On-line Dictionary of Computing).

  6. 6.

    Although in many cases this is dressed up to look like prediction, such as the fitting to out-of-sample data. Prediction has to be for data unknown to the modeller, otherwise the model will be implicitly fitted to it.

  7. 7.

    In terms of design and implementation, if one has a good reference case in terms of observed data then you can also check one’s simulation against this.

  8. 8.

    Obviously we suspect it can be a useful tool otherwise we would not be bothering with it.

  9. 9.

    I.e. those who are part of, or can influence the social phenomenon in question.

  10. 10.

    Folk-knowledge is the set of widely-held beliefs about popular psychological and social theories, this is sometimes used in a rather derogatory way even when the reliability of the academic alternatives is unclear.

  11. 11.

    This is when prediction is actually useful, for if it only gives expected values one would not need the simulation.

  12. 12.

    If a simulation is not directly related to evidence but is more a model of some ideas, then it might be simple enough to be able to test hypotheses but these hypotheses will then be about the abstract model and not about the target phenomena.

  13. 13.

    This fact has lead some to argue that such assumptions of perfect rationality should be dropped and that it might be better to adopt a more naturalistic representation of human’s cognition (Gode and Sunder 1993; Kirman 2011).

  14. 14.

    http://www.openabm.org.

  15. 15.

    Although in this particular case it did not, since the model indicated outcomes that the policy makers preferred to ignore, being not compatible with the policy they had already fixed upon.

  16. 16.

    To be precise: a possible encapsulation of a particular set of evidence on the case study.

  17. 17.

    This can either be done directly as a translation of an interview text into programmed rules or used to check that such programming is correct by comparing the resulting behaviour of an agent against what happens when the simulation is run. Thus there is not an absolutely clear distinction between verification and validation from evidence. In a sense this second method is verification since the programming is rejected until correct but, on the other hand, this is part of the production of a simulation, which may only be completed later for its validation as a whole.

  18. 18.

    Unlikely in view of the psychological or sociological evidence about the target subjects.

  19. 19.

    A “null” model is a model version where the claimed causal mechanism is eliminated to see if the resultant “effect” would have arisen as the result of background (e.g. random) mechanisms anyway.

  20. 20.

    Another option is to exhaustively try all the possibilities in a series of simulations or by using techniques such as constraint logic programming but these are technically difficult and require a lot of computational power.

  21. 21.

    There are possible reasons why a constant value might not work, for example when the input provides some mechanism of symmetry-breaking.

  22. 22.

    There is nothing wrong with assumptions that had to be made due to constraints on resources, such as time, expertise or computing power, but it is simply disingenuous to pretend that this is sanctioned by a higher “virtue”.

  23. 23.

    However this is a poor excuse given that a technical paper which is relatively complete can easily be archived and referenced along with a journal article or report.

  24. 24.

    Alternatively it may be because the simulation designers had not thought about what they were doing.

  25. 25.

    It is trivial to point out that a simulation has missed out some assumption or other, but this is not very useful. It is far more useful to point out how and why an assumption might be important and for which purposes.

  26. 26.

    Data was compiled until July 2009, on time for discussion at the 6th European Social Simulation Association Conference in September, and then updated for the Artificial Intelligence & Society Journal.

  27. 27.

    At least, not in any of the cases we have yet come across.

References

  • Alam SJ, Meyer R, Ziervogel G, Moss S (2007) The impact of HIV/AIDS in the context of socioeconomic stressors: an evidence-driven approach. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 10(4), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/10/4/7.html

  • Axelrod R (1984) The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R (1997) The complexity of cooperation. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Axtell R, Axelrod R, Epstein JM, Cohen MD (1996) Aligning simulation models: a case study and results. Comput Math Organ Theor 1(2):123–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axtell RL et al (2002) Population growth and collapse in a multi-agent model of the Kayenta Anasazi in Long House Valley. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99(3):7275–7279

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Barreteau O et al (2013) Participatory approaches. Chapter 10 in this volume

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman M, Nicolson C, Kofinas G, Tetlichi J, Martin S (2004) Adaptation and sustainability in a small arctic community: results of an agent-based simulation model. Arctic 57(4):401–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Bharwani S et al (2005) Multi-agent modelling of climate outlooks and food security on a community garden scheme in Limpopo, South Africa. Phil Trans R Soc B 360(1463):2183–2194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs R, Carpenter SR, Brock WA (2009) Turning back from the brink: detecting an impending regime shift in time to avert it. Proc Natl Acad Sci (PNAS) 106:826–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown L, Harding A (2002) Social modelling and public policy: application of microsimulation modelling in Australia. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 5(4), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/5/4/6.html

  • Cartwright N (1993) How the laws of physics lie. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen K, Sasaki Y (2008) Agent-based emergency evacuation simulation with individuals with disabilities in the population. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 11(3), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/11/3/9.html

  • Clifford J (1986) Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole HSD, Freeman C, Jahoda M, Pavitt KL (eds) (1973) Models of doom: a critique of the Limits to Growth. Universe Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis J, Frith D (2008) Exit polling in a cold climate: the BBC–ITV experience in Britain in 2005. J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc 171(3):509–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David N (2013) Validating simulations. Chapter 8 in this volume

    Google Scholar 

  • Deffuant G, Weisbuch G (2007) Probability distribution dynamics explaining agent model convergence to extremism. In: Edmonds B, Hernandez C, Troitzsch KG (eds) Social simulation: technologies, advances and new discoveries. IGI Publishing, Hershey, pp 43–60

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Deffuant G, Neau D, Amblard F, Weisbuch G (2000) Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Adv Complex Syst 3(1):87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doran JE (1997) Foreknowledge in artificial societies. In: Conte R, Hegselmann R, Tierna P (eds) Simulating social phenomena. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems, 456. Springer, Berlin, pp 457–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar RIM (1998) The social brain hypothesis. Evol Anthropol 6(5):178–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds B (1999) The pragmatic roots of context. In: Bouquet P, Serafini L, Brezillon P, Benerecetti M, Castellani F (eds) Modelling and using context. Second international and interdisciplinary conference, CONTEXT’99, Trento, Italy, 9–11 Sept 1999, Proceedings. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, 1688. Springer, Berlin, pp 119–132, http://cfpm.org/cpmrep52.html

  • Edmonds B (2001) The use of models – making MABS actually work. In: Moss S, Davidsson P (eds) Multi agent based simulation. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, 1979. Springer, Berlin pp 15–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds B (2007) The practical modelling of context-dependent causal processes – a recasting of Robert Rosen’s thought. Chem Biodivers 4(1):2386–2395

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds B (2010) Context and social simulation. Paper presented at the IV edition of epistemological perspectives on simulation (EPOS2010), Hamburg, 23–25 June 2010, http://cfpm.org/cpmrep210.html

  • Edmonds B, Hales D (2003) Replication, replication and replication – some hard lessons from model alignment. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(4), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/4/11.html

  • Edmonds B, Hales D (2005) Computational simulation as theoretical experiment. J Math Sociol 29(3):209–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds B, Moss S (2005) From KISS to KIDS – an ‘anti-simplistic’ modelling approach. In: Davidsson P et al (eds) Multi agent based simulation 2004. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, 3415. Springer, Berlin, pp 130–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein J (2008) Why model? J Artif Soc Soc Simul 11(4). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/11/4/12.html

  • Etienne M (2003) SYLVOPAST: a multiple target role-playing game to assess negotiation processes in sylvopastoral management planning. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(2), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/5.html

  • Galam S (1997) Rational group decision making: a random field Ising model at T =0. Physica A 238:66–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galán JM et al (2009) Errors and artefacts in agent-based modelling. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 12(1), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/1/1.html

  • Gilbert N, Troitzsch K (2005) Simulation for the social scientist, 2nd edn. Open University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gode DK, Sunder S (1993) Allocative efficiency of markets with zero intelligence traders: markets as a partial substitute for individual rationality. J Polit Econ 110:119–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm V et al (2005) Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Science 310(5750):987–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm V et al (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Model 198(1–2):115–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm V, Polhill JG, Touza J (2013) Documenting social simulation models: the ODD protocol as a standard. Chapter 7 in this volume

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, London, pp 105–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Guimera R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Amaral LA (2005) Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308(5722):697–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hales D (2013) Distributed computer systems. Chapter 21 in this volume

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath B, Hill R, Ciarallo F (2009) A survey of agent-based modeling practices (January 1998 to July 2008). J Artif Soc Soc Simul 12(9), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/4/9.html

  • Izquierdo LR (2008) Advancing learning and evolutionary game theory with an application to social dilemmas. PhD thesis, Manchester Metropolitan University, http://cfpm.org/theses/luisizquierdo/

  • Izquierdo SS, Izquierdo LR (2006) On the structural robustness of evolutionary models of cooperation. In: Corchado E, Yin H, Botti VJ, Fyfe C (eds) Intelligent data engineering and automated learning – IDEAL 2006, 7th international conference, Burgos, Spain, 20–23 Sept 2006, Proceedings. Lecture notes in computer science 4224. Springer, Berlin, pp 172–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen MA (2009) Understanding artificial Anasazi. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 12(4), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/4/13.html

  • Kahn K, Noble H (2009) The modelling4All project – a web-based modelling tool embedded in Web 2.0. In: Dalle O et al (eds) Proceedings of SIMUTools ’09, 2nd international conference on simulation tools and techniques, Rome, 2–6 Mar 2009, ICST, Brussels, Article 50

    Google Scholar 

  • Kephart JO, Greenwald AR (2002) Shopbot economics. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 5(3):255–287

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kirman A (2011) Complex economics: individual and collective rationality. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirman A, Moulet S (2008) Impact de l’organisation du marché: Comparaison de la négociation de gré à gré et des enchères descendants. Working papers, halshs-00349034, HAL, Centre pour la communication scientifique directe, http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/34/90/34/PDF/DT2008-56.pdf

  • Klein G (1998) Sources of power: how people make decisions. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler T (2009) Generative archaeology: how even really simple models can help in understanding the past. Invited talk at 6th conference of the European social simulation association, University of Surrey, Guildford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler TA, Gumerman GJ, Reynolds RG (2005) Simulating ancient societies. Sci Am 293(1):76–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler TA, Varien MD, Wright A, Kuckelman KA (2008) Mesa Verde migrations: new archaeological research and computer simulation suggest why ancestral Puebloans deserted the northern Southwest United States. Am Sci 96:146–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos I, Musgrave A (eds) (1970) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBaron B (2006) Agent-based computational finance. In: Tesfatsion L, Judd KL (eds) Handbook of computational economics, vol 2. North-Holland, pp 1187–1232

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz J (2007) Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence: a survey. Int J Mod Phys C 18(12):1819–1838

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas P (2013) Conventional social behaviour amongst microfinance clients. PhD thesis, Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan University

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas P (2011) Usefulness of simulating social phenomena: evidence. AI Soc 26(4):355–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malthus T (1798) An essay on the principle of population. Johnson, London, Transcript available online at http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/malthus/popu.txt

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks RE (2007) Validating simulation models: a general framework and four applied examples. Comput Econ 30(3):265–290

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews RB (2006) The people and landscape model (PALM): towards full integration of human decision-making and biophysical simulation models. Ecol Model 194:329–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows DH, Meadows D, Randers J, Behrens WWIII (1972) The Limits to Growth: a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss S (1998) Critical incident management: an empirically derived computational model. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 1(4), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/1/4/1.html

  • Moss S (1999) Relevance, realism and rigour: a third way for social and economic research. Report no. CPM-99-56. Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, http://cfpm.org/cpmrep56.html

  • Newell A (1990) Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaisen J, Petrov V, Tesfatsion L (2001) Market power and efficiency in a computational electricity market with discriminatory double-auction pricing. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 5(5):504–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps S, McBurney P, Parsons S, Sklar E (2002) Co-evolutionary auction mechanism design: a preliminary report. In: Padget J, Shehory O, Parkes D, Sadeh N, Walsh WE (eds) Agent-mediated electronic commerce IV, designing mechanisms and systems. Lecture notes in computer science, 2531. Springer, Berlin, pp 193–213

    Google Scholar 

  • PNAS (2002) Colloquium papers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(s3), http://www.pnas.org/content/99/suppl.3.toc#ColloquiumPaper

  • Polhill JG, Gotts NM, Law ANR (2001) Imitative versus non-imitative strategies in a land use simulation. Cybernet Syst 32(1–2):285–307

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Polhill JG, Parker D, Brown D, Grimm V (2008) Using the ODD protocol for describing three agent-based social simulation models of land-use change. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 11(2), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/11/2/3.html

  • Popper K (1963) Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Riolo RL, Cohen MD, Axelrod R (2001) Evolution of cooperation without reciprocity. Nature 411:441–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts G, Sherratt TN (2002) Does similarity breed cooperation? Nature 418:499–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouchier J (2001) Est-il possible d’utiliser une définition positive de la confiance dans les interactions entre agents? Paper presented at Colloque Interactions, Toulouse, May 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouchier J (2013) Agent-based simulation as a useful tool for the study of markets. Chapter 23 in this volume

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouchier J, Thoyer S (2006) Votes and lobbying in the European decision-making process: application to the European regulation on GMO release. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 9(3), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/3/1.html

  • Rouchier J, Bousquet F, Requier-Desjardins M, Antona M, Econ J (2001) A multi-agent model for describing transhumance in North Cameroon: comparison of different rationality to develop a routine. J Econ Dyn Control 25(3–4):527–559

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Saqalli M, Bielders CL, Gerard B, Defourny P (2010) Simulating rural environmentally and socio-economically constrained multi-activity and multi-decision societies in a low-data context: a challenge through empirical agent-based modeling. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 13(2), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/13/2/1.html

  • Schelling T (1969) Models of segregation. Am Econ Rev 59(2):488–493

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling T (1971) Dynamic models of segregation. J Math Sociol 1:143–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer A, McLean A (2002) Mathematical models of vaccination. Br Med Bull 62(1):187–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snijders TAB, Steglich CEG, van de Bunt GG (2010) Introduction to actor-based models for network dynamics. Soc Networks 32:44–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun R (2005) Theoretical status of computational cognitive modelling. Technical report, Cognitive Science Department, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor R, Takama T, Taylor A, Ziervogel G (2009) Participatory validation of agent-based models to support policy dialogue. In: Gilbert N, Edmonds B (eds) Proceedings of the 6th European social simulation association conference, University of Surrey, Guildford

    Google Scholar 

  • Terán O, Alvarez J, Ablan M, Jaimes M (2007) Characterising emergence of landowners in a forest reserve. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 10(3), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/10/3/6.html

  • Vermeulen PJ, de Jongh DCJ (1976) Parameter sensitivity of the ‘Limits to Growth’ world model. Appl Math Model 1(1):29–32

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • von Randow G (2003) When the centre becomes radical. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(1), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/1/5.html

  • White DR (1999) Controlled simulation of marriage systems. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 2(3), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/2/3/5.html

  • Yang C, Kurahashi S, Kurahashi K, Ono I, Terano T (2009) Agent-based simulation on women’s role in a family line on civil service examination in Chinese history. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 12(2):5, http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/2/5.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Young J, Mendizabal E (2009) Helping researchers become policy entrepreneurs – how to develop engagement strategies for evidence-based policy-making. Briefing paper, Overseas Development Institute, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Younger S (2005) Violence and revenge in Egalitarian societies. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 8(4), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/4/11.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK

    Bruce Edmonds

  2. Geary Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Pablo Lucas

  3. School of Economics, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

    Juliette Rouchier

  4. Oxford Branch, Stockholm Environment Institute, Oxford, UK

    Richard Taylor

Authors
  1. Bruce Edmonds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pablo Lucas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juliette Rouchier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce Edmonds .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. CPM - Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, M1 3GH, United Kingdom

    Bruce Edmonds

  2. , Center for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Street, Manchester, M1 3GH, United Kingdom

    Ruth Meyer

Further Reading

Further Reading

The best general introduction to social simulation is (Gilbert and Troitzsch 2005) which covers general issues and gives code examples. For a wider range of views on social simulation the published papers from the US National Academy of Sciences colloquium on “Adaptive Agents, Intelligence, and Emergent Human Organization: Capturing Complexity through Agent-Based Modeling” (PNAS 2002) give a good cross-section of the different approaches people take to this area. It is difficult to point to further good sources as this topic is so diverse but the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation has many accessible papers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Edmonds, B., Lucas, P., Rouchier, J., Taylor, R. (2013). Human Societies: Understanding Observed Social Phenomena. In: Edmonds, B., Meyer, R. (eds) Simulating Social Complexity. Understanding Complex Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-93813-2_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-93813-2_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-93812-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-93813-2

  • eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation