Advertisement

Agent-Based Model of Risk Assessment: A Distributed Cognition Approach

  • Clemens HartenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

To better understand where and why errors happen in risk assessment, we propose a model of the risk assessment process as a distributed cognitive task for a group of agents. This model provides the foundation for an agent-based simulation that allows a systematic investigation of the risk assessment process in a controlled setting. Building on a perspective of sensemaking and cognition on risk analysis, we present a new approach to assess a whole class of group decision-making problems by building generalized constraint satisfaction networks as a starting point for a randomized agent-based simulation.

Keywords

Constraint satisfaction networks Agent-Based modeling Group decision making 

References

  1. Aven, T.: Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management. Risk Anal. 32(10), 1647–1656 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aven, T.: Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 253(1), 1–13 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bromiley, P., McShane, M., Nair, A., Rustambekov, E.: Enterprise risk management: review, critique, and research directions. Long Range Plan. 48(4), 265–276 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, A.D., Colville, I., Pye, A.: Making sense of sensemaking in organization studies. Organ. Stud. 36(2), 265–277 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frigotto, M.L., Rossi, A.: Diversity and communication in teams: improving problem-solving or creating confusion? Group Decis. Negot. 21(6), 791–820 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frigotto, M.L., Rossi, A.: An explanatory coherence model of decision making in ill-structured problems. Mind Soc. 14(1), 35–55 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilbert, N., Troitzsch, K.G.: Simulation for the Social Scientist. Open University Press, Berkshire (2005)Google Scholar
  8. Hansson, S.O., Aven, T.: Is Risk Analysis Scientific? Risk Anal. 34(7), 1173–1183 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hegselmann, R., Krause, U.: Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 5(3) (2002)Google Scholar
  10. Hutchins, E.: Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2000)Google Scholar
  11. ISO—The International Organization for Standardization: ISO 31000:2009—Risk management—Principles and guidelines (2009)Google Scholar
  12. Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M.: The delphi method. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1975)Google Scholar
  13. Mikes, A.: Risk management and calculative cultures. Manag. Account. Res. 20, 18–40 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nowak, G., Thagard, P.: Newton, Descartes, and explanatory coherence. In: Duschl, R.A., Hamilton, R.J. (eds.) Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology and Educational Theory and Practice, pp. 69–115. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  15. Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.G.: Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 24(2), 311–322 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Taarup‐Esbensen, J.: Making sense of risk—a sociological perspective on the management of risk. Risk Anal. (2018)Google Scholar
  17. Taylor, J.R., Van Every, E.J.: The emergent organization: communication as its site and surface. Routledge (1999)Google Scholar
  18. Thagard, P.: Explanatory coherence. Behav. Brain Sci. 12(3), 435–467 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thagard, P.: Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey (1992)Google Scholar
  20. Thagard, P.: Coherence in thought and action. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thagard, P.: Causal inference in legal decision making: explanatory coherence versus Bayesian networks. Appl. Artif. Intell. 18(3–4), 231–249 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thagard, P.: Cognitive architectures. In: Frankish, K., Ramsey, W.M. (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of cognitive science, pp. 50–70. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weick, K.E.: Sensemaking in organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1995)Google Scholar
  24. Xia, H., Wang, H., Xuan, Z.: Opinion dynamics: disciplinary origins, recent developments, and a view on future trends. Phys. Rev. 18(5), 35–39 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hamburg University of TechnologyHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations