Mind & Society

, 8:153 | Cite as

Normal = Normative? The role of intelligent agents in norm innovation

  • Marco CampenníEmail author
  • Giulia Andrighetto
  • Federico Cecconi
  • Rosaria Conte


The necessity to model the mental ingredients of norm compliance is a controversial issue within the study of norms. So far, the simulation-based study of norm emergence has shown a prevailing tendency to model norm conformity as a thoughtless behavior, emerging from social learning and imitation rather than from specific, norm-related mental representations. In this paper, the opposite stance—namely, a view of norms as hybrid, two-faceted phenomena, including a behavioral/social and an internal/mental side—is taken. Such a view is aimed at accounting for the difference between norms, on one hand, and either behavioral regularities (conventions) on the other. This paper, in particular, is addressed to find out the internal ingredients required for the former distinction, i.e., to model norms as distinct from mere conventions, and defined as behaviors spreading to the extent that and because the corresponding commands and beliefs do spread as well. After a brief presentation of a normative agent architecture, the results of agent-based simulations testing the impact of norm recognition and the role of normative beliefs in the emergence and innovation of social norms are presented and discussed. More specifically, the present work will endeavour to show that a sudden external constraint (e.g. a barrier preventing agents from moving among social settings) facilitates norm innovation: under such a condition, agents provided with a module for telling what a norm is can generate new (social) norms by forming new normative beliefs, irrespective of the most frequent actions.


Agent architecture Norm innovation Social simulation 



This work was supported by the EMIL project (IST-033841), funded by the Future and Emerging Technologies program of the European Commission, in the framework of the initiative Simulating Emergent Properties in Complex Systems.


  1. Alchourròn CE, Bulygin E (1971) Normative systems. Springer, WienGoogle Scholar
  2. Alchourròn CE, Gardernfors P, Makinson D (1985) On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J Symbolic Logic 50:510–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrighetto G, Campenni' M, Conte R, Paolucci M (2007) On the immergence of norms: a normative agent architecture. In: Proceedings of AAAI symposium, social and organizational aspects of intelligence Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrighetto G, Campenni' M, Cecconi F, Conte R (2008) How agents find out norms: a simulation based model of norm innovation. In: 3rd international workshop on normative multiagent systems (NorMAS 2008)Google Scholar
  5. Axelrod R (1986) An evolutionary approach to norms. Am Polit Sci Rev 4(80):1095–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Axelrod R (1987) The evolution of strategies in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. Kaufmann, Los AltosGoogle Scholar
  7. Bicchieri C (2006) The grammar of society: the nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Binmore K (1994) Game-theory and social contract. vol 1: fair playing. Clarendon, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Boella G (2001) Social order in multiagent systems, chapter deliberate normative agents. basic instructions. Kluwer, NorwellGoogle Scholar
  10. Boella G, van der Torre L, Verhagen H (2006) Special issue edited by normative multiagent systems. J Comput Math Organ Theory (CMOT) 12:2–3Google Scholar
  11. Broersen J, Dastani M, Hulstijn J, Huang Z, van der Torre L (2001) The BOID architecture: conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  12. Broersen J, Dastani M, van der Torre L (2005) Beliefs, obligations, intentions, and desires as components in an agent architecture. Int J Intell Syst 20(9):893–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Castelfranchi C (1998) Simulating with cognitive agents: the importance of cognitive emergence. Multi-agent systems and agent-based simulation. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. Castelfranchi C (1999) Prescribed mental attitudes in goal-adoption and norm-adoption. Artif Intell Law 7(1):37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Castelfranchi C, Conte R (1999) From conventions to prescriptions: towards a unified theory of norms. AI Law 7:323–340Google Scholar
  16. Conte R, Castelfranchi C (1995) Cognitive and social action. University College of London Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Conte R, Castelfranchi C (2006) The mental path of norms. Ratio Juris 19(4):501–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conte R, Dignum F (2001) From social monitoring to normative influence. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 4(2)Google Scholar
  19. Conte R, Castelfranchi C, Dignum F (1998) Autonomous norm-acceptance. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on intelligent agents V, agent theories, architectures, and languages, pp 99–112Google Scholar
  20. Conte R, Andrighetto G, Campenni’ M, Paolucci M (2007) Emergent and immergent effects in complex social systems. In: Proceedings of AAAI symposium, social and organizational aspects of intelligence, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Dignum F (1999) Autonomous agents with norms. AI Law 7(1):69–79Google Scholar
  22. Epstein J (2006) Generative social science: studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  23. Fent T (2006) Collective social dynamics and social norms. Munich Personal RePEc ArchiveGoogle Scholar
  24. Gintis H, Bowles S, Boyd R, Fehr E (2003) Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evol Hum Behav 24(3):153–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heckathorn D (1988) Collective sanctions and the compliance norms a formal theory of group-mediated social-control. Am J Soc 94:535–562Google Scholar
  26. Horne C (2007) Explaining norm enforcement. Ration Soc 19(2):139–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hume D (1978) Trattato sulla natura umana (trad. it.) Bari, Italy, LaterzaGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones A, Sergot M (1996) A formal characterization of institutionalized power. Logic J Igpl 4(3):429–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kelsen H (1991) General theory of norms. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewis DK (1969) Convention: a philosophical study. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindhal L (1977) Position and change: a study in law and logic. In: Springer series: synthese library (originally published in Swedish 1977), vol 112. Reidel, Dordrecht, 318 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Lopez y Lopez F, Luck M, d’Inverno M (2002) Constraining autonomy through norms. In: Proceedings of AAMAS ‘02Google Scholar
  33. Myerson RB (1991) Game theory: analysis of conflict. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Oliver PE (1993) Formal models of collective action. Annu Rev Sociol 19:271–300Google Scholar
  35. Posner R, Rasmusen E (1999) Creating and enforcing norms, with special reference to sanctions. Int Rev Law Econ, pp 369–382Google Scholar
  36. Rosaria C (2009) Rational, goal governed agents: encyclopedia of complexity and systems science. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  37. Savarimuthu B, Purvis M, Cranefield S, Purvis M (2007) Mechanisms for norm emergence in multi-agent societies. Proceedings of 6th joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), Honolulu, Hawaii (USA)Google Scholar
  38. Sen S, Airiau S (2007) Emergence of norms through social learning. In: Proceedings of the 20 international joint conference on AAAIGoogle Scholar
  39. Shoham Y, Tennenholtz M (1992) On the synthesis of useful social laws in artificial societies. In: Proceedings of the 10th national conference on artificial intelligence, number 276–282. Kaufmann, San Mateo, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  40. Shoham Y, Tennenholtz M (1994) Co-learning and the evolution of social activity. Technical Report CS- TR-94-1511, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  41. Ullman-Margalit E (1977) The emergence of norms. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. van der Torre L, Tan Y (1999) Contrary-to-duty reasoning with preference-based dyadic obligations. Ann Math Artif Intel, pp 1239–1246Google Scholar
  43. von Wright GH (1963) Norm and action: a logical inquiry. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Young HP (1998) Individual strategy and social structure: an evolutionary theory of institutions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Fondazione Rosselli 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Campenní
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Giulia Andrighetto
    • 1
  • Federico Cecconi
    • 1
  • Rosaria Conte
    • 1
  1. 1.LABSS, Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione, CNRRomeItaly
  2. 2.Philosophy DepartmentUniversità degli Studi di Roma Tor VergataRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations