Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Second-order micromotives and macrobehaviour

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Computational Social Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper deals with the gap between the preferences of individual agents and collective outcomes. The typical example of this topic is the Schelling–Sakoda segregation model where a first-order discrimination criterion is used to decide whether or not a person will leave his place. Based on the ratio of “acceptable” people around one individual, simple simulations show that even tolerant agents end up being spatially aggregated far beyond of the local requirement of their tolerance level. Here, we use a second-order discrimination criterion to compel people to leave their places, that is a criterion based on the result of the first-order one. According to the respective strength of the two criteria, the problematic will be to determine the spatial repartition of the agents resulting from their moves. This paper provides some answers to the question: does a second-order criterion contribute or not to reduce the gap between micromotives and macrobehaviour?

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order.

  2. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/.

  3. The simulator’s code is specific and does not use the segregation model from the NetLogo Models Library.

  4. For each cell, there are exactly eight neighbouring cells.

  5. There are 2250 agents and 250 vacant places.

  6. With a density of 0.99, there are 25 vacant places only.

References

  1. Gilbert, N., & Troitzsch, K. G. (2005). Simulation for the social scientist. Milton Keynes. Open University Press, London. ISBN 0-335-21600-5.

  2. Macy, M., & Willer, R. (2001). From factors to actors: Computational sociology and agent-based modeling. Ithaca: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Raub, W., Buskens, V., & Van Assen, M. A. (2011). Micro-macro links and microfoundations in sociology. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 35(1–3), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2010.532263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hegselmann, R., Schelling, T. C., & Sakoda, J. M. (2017). The intellectual, technical, and social history of a model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20(3), 15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sakoda, J. M. (1971). The checkerboard model of social interaction. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1(1), 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schelling, T. C. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schelling, T. C. (2006). Micromotives and macrobehavior. New York: WW Norton and Co. (new edition).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pancs, R., & Vriend, N. (2003). Schelling’s spatial proximity model of segregation revisited. Journal Computing in Economics and Finances, 91, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Goffette-Nagot, F., Jensen, P., & Grauwin, S. (2009). Dynamic models of residential segregation: Brief review, analytical resolution and study of the introduction of coordination. SSRN Electronic Journal 96 (halshs-00404400_v1). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1436978.

  10. Banos, A. (2010). Network effects in Schelling’s model of segregation: new evidences from agent-based simulation. hal-00469727v1.

  11. Gauvin, L., Vannimenus, J., & Nadal, J.-P. (2009). Phase diagram of a Schelling segregation model. European Physical Journal B, 70, 293–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gerhold, S., Glebsky, L., Schneider, C., Weiss, H., & Zimmermann, B. (2008). Computing the complexity for Schelling segregation models. Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 13(10), 2236–2245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang, J. (2004). A dynamic model of residential segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 28, 147–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Collard, P. (2019). Strong and weak spatial segregation with multilevel discrimination criteria. Complex Systems, 28(2).

  15. Collard, P., Mesmoudi, S. (2011). How to prevent intolerant agents from high segregation? In Advances in artificial life (ECAL). MIT Press.

  16. Collard, P. (2013). Beyond the Schelling’s segregation model: Is it equivalent to be repulse by dissimilar rather to be attracted by similar ? In European Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems, Ed. “Advances in Artificial Life” MIT Press.

  17. Collard, P., & Ghetiu, T. (2016). Segregation landscape: A new view on the Schelling segregation space. Complex Systems, 25(3), 169–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Laurie, A. J., & Jaggi, N. K. (2003). Role of ’Vision’ in neighbourhood racial segregation: A variant of the Schelling segregation model. Urban Studies, 40(13), 2687–2704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Squazzoni, F. (2012). Agent-Based Computational Sociology, Edn. Wiley, ISBN-13: 978-0470711743.

  20. Jara, E., Vila, J., & Maldonado, A. (2006). Second-order conditioning of human causal learning. Learning and Motivation, 37(3), 230–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation (p. 6). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gilbert, N. (2002). Varieties of emergence. In D. Sallach (Eds.), Social Agents: Ecology, Exchange, and Evolution, Agent 2002 Conference (pp. 41–56).

  23. Carrington, W. J., & Troske, K. R. (1997). On measuring segregation in samples with small units. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 15, 402–409.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Erika, N. (2016). Carlson, meta-accuracy and relationship quality: Weighing the costs and benefits of knowing what people really think about you. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(2), 250–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Carlson, E. N., Vazire, S., & Furr, R. M. (2011). Meta-insight: do people really know how others see them? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 831–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Vazire, S., & Carlson, E. N. (2011). Others sometimes know us better than we know ourselves. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 104–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sunstein, C. R., & Ullmann-Margalit, E. (1998). Second-order decisions. John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper No. 57.

  28. Ullmann-Margalit, E. (1998). No wanting to know. In Reasoning Practically, Ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

  29. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wilensky, U. (1999). Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling. Northwestern University, Evanston. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/

  31. Collard, P., Mesmoudi, S., Ghetiu, T., & Polack, F. (2013). Emergence of Frontiers in networked Schelling segregationist models. Complex Systems, 22(1), 35–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gould, R. V., & Fernandez, R. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harverd University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Marston, W. G., & Van Valey, T. L. (1979). The role of residential segregation in the assimilation process. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 441, 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chaudhary, Anil Kumar, & Warner, L. A. (2018). Introduction to social network research: Brokerage Typology University of Florida/IFAS extension. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/WC/WC19700.pdf March 2015, Reviewed.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université Côte d’Azur, CNRS, Laboratoire I3S, UCA, Parc Valrose, 06108, Nice, France

    Philippe Collard

Authors
  1. Philippe Collard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Collard.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Collard, P. Second-order micromotives and macrobehaviour. J Comput Soc Sc 3, 209–229 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-020-00062-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-020-00062-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation