Agent-Based Simulation of Cultural Events Impact on Social Capital Dynamics

  • Darius PlikynasEmail author
  • Rimvydas LaužikasEmail author
  • Leonidas SakalauskasEmail author
  • Arūnas MiliauskasEmail author
  • Vytautas DulskisEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1037)


Modern societies are very rapidly changing in the context of complex and dynamic technological, economic and cultural environments. Admittedly, the latter environment is very vague and much less understood in terms of formal modelling of underlying processes. Evidently, in the era of globalization and radicalization, there is an urgent need to have some applicable models to simulate and foresee how particular cultural activities form social cohesion, dispersion, clusterization or radicalization in social groups or society in general. In this regard, presented multidisciplinary research paper is focused on modelling and simulation of stylized cultural events impact to social capital dynamics and distribution. Presented agent-based simulation approach rests upon conceptual model, which employs CIDOC-CRM methodology. OECD scheme is used to estimate social capital metrics - personal relationships, social network support, civic engagement, trust and cooperative norms. Agent-based simulation model is described using ODD standardized protocol. NetLogo MAS platform is used as a simulation environment. Obtained simulation results start from a well-known Axelrod agent-based physical neighbourhood interaction model, which we, following modern empirical observations, expanded for (i) the long-range interaction approach (broadcasted cultural events) and (ii) neighbourhood interaction in the social capital dimensions. Simulation results reveal some basic conditions under which cohesion, clustering or radicalization behavioural patterns can emerge in the simulated society.


Agent-based simulation ODD protocol CIDOC-CRM Social capital Cultural events 



This research was funded by a grant (No. P-MIP-17-368) from the Research Council of Lithuania.


  1. 1.
    Lin, N.: Building a network theory of social capital. In: Social Capital, pp. 3–28. Routledge (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dubos, R.: Social Capital: Theory and Research. Routledge, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Woolcock, M., Narayan, D.: Social capital: implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Res. Obs. 15(2), 225–249 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bourdieu, P.: The forms of capital (1986). In: Cultural Theory: An Anthology, vol. 1, pp, 81–93(2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perkins, D.D., Long, D.A.: Neighborhood sense of community and social capital. In: Psychological Sense of Community, pp. 291–318. Springer, Boston (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burt, R.S.: Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flynn, F.J., Reagans, R.E., Guillory, L.: Do you two know each other? Transitivity, homophily, and the need for (network) closure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99(5), 855 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Putnam, R.D.: Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In Culture and Politics, pp. 223–234. Palgrave Macmillan, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scrivens, K., Smith, C.: Four interpretations of social capital: an agenda for measurement (No. 2013/6). OECD Publishing (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Axelrod, R.: The dissemination of culture. A model with local convergence and global polarization. J. Confl. Resolut. 41(2), 203–226 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Plikynas, D.: Introducing the Oscillations Based Paradigm. Springer, Cham (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grimm, V., Berger, U., Bastiansen, F., Eliassen, S., Ginot, V., Giske, J., Goss-Custard, J., Grand, T., Heinz, S., Huse, G.: A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol. Model. 198, 115–126 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Polhill, J.G., Parker, D., Brown, D., Grimm, V.: Using the ODD protocol for describing three agent-based social simulation models of land-use change. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 11(2), 3 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grimm, V., Berger, U., DeAngelis, D.L., Polhill, J.G., Giske, J., Railsback, S.F.: The ODD protocol: a review and first update. Ecol. Model. 221, 2760–2768 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    North, M.J., Collier, N.T., Ozik, J., Tatara, E.R., Macal, C.M., Bragen, M., Sydelko, P.: Complex adaptive systems modeling with Repast Simphony. Complex Adapt. Syst. Model. 1(1), 3 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tisue, S., Wilensky, U.: Netlogo: a simple environment for modeling complexity. In: International Conference on Complex Systems, vol. 21, pp. 16–21, May 2004Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu, G.: Measuring the stock of human capital for comparative analysis: an application of the lifetime income approach to selected countries. OECD Statistics Working Papers, 2011(6), 0_1 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lotman, I.M., Lotman, Y.M.: Universe of the mind: a semiotic theory of culture. IB Tauris (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Florida, R.: The Rise of the Creative Class–Revisited: Revised and Expanded. Basic Books (AZ) (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R.: A conceptual model for exploring the relationship between sustainability and project success. Procedia Comput. Sci. 64, 334–342 (2015). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Edwards, M., Onyx, J., Maxwell, H., Darcy, S., Bullen, P., Sherker, S.: A conceptual model of social impact as active citizenship. VOLUNTAS Int. J. Voluntary Nonprofit Organ. 26(4), 1529–1549 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smyth, E., Vanclay, F.: The Social Framework for Projects: a conceptual but practical model to assist in assessing, planning and managing the social impacts of projects. Impact Assess. Proj. Appraisal 35(1: Displacement, resettlement and livelihoods), 65–80 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Onyx, J.: A theoretical model of social impact. Cosmop. Civ. Soc. J. 6(1) (2014).
  24. 24.
    Taylor, P., Davies, L., Wells, P., Gilbertson, J., Tayleur, W.: A Review of the Social Impacts of Culture and Sport. The Culture and Sport Evidence (CASE) Programme, Sheffield (2015).
  25. 25.
    Holtz, G.: Generating social practices. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 17(1), 17 (2014). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. Telematica Instituut Fundamental Research Series, No. 015 (TI/FRS/015). Telematica Instituut, Enschede (2005).
  27. 27.
    Livet, P., Müller, J.P., Phanand, D., Sanders, L.: Ontology, a mediator for agent-based modeling in social science. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 13(1), 3 (2010). Scholar
  28. 28.
    The CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group: Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model. Version 6.2.1 (2015).
  29. 29.
    Benardou, A., Constantopoulos, P., Dallas, C. Gavrilis, D.: A conceptual model for scholarly research activity. In: iConference 2010 Papers (2010).
  30. 30.
    Doerr, M.: The CIDOC CRM, an ontological approach to schema heterogeneity. In: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 04391, Semantic Interoperability and Integration (2005).
  31. 31.
    Doerr, M., Ore, C.E. Stead, S.: The CIDOC conceptual reference model - a new standard for knowledge sharing. In: Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology (CRPIT), vol. 83Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Ruymbeke, M., Hallot, P., Billen, R.: Enhancing CIDOC-CRM and compatible models with the concept of multiple interpretation. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. IV-2/W2, 287–294 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Glasser, N.: Conceptual Modelling of Multi-Agent Systems: the Comomas Engineering Environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Molders, M., Fink, R.D., Weyer, J.: Modeling scientists as agents. How scientists cope with the challenges of the new public management of science. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 14(4), 6 (2011). Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lotzmann, U., Neumann, M.: Simulation for interpretation: a methodology for growing virtual cultures. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 20(3), 13 (2017). Scholar
  36. 36.
    Scherer, S., Wimmer, M., Lotzmann, U., Mossand, S., Pinotti, D.: Evidence based and conceptual model driven approach for agent-based policy modelling. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 18(3), 14 (2015). Scholar
  37. 37.
    Russell, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hill, K., Capriotti, K: Social effects of culture: detailed statistical models. In: Statistical Insights on the Arts, vol. 7, no. 1. Hill Strategies Research Inc., Hamilton (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stanley, D.: The social effects of culture. Can. J. Commun. 31(1), 7–15 (2006). Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fujiwara, D., Kudrna, L., Dolan, P.: Quantifying the Social Impacts of Culture and Sport. Department for Culture, Media & Sport, London (2014)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    The OECD Statistics Directorate: The list of surveys. The OECD measurement of social capital project and question databank (2013).
  42. 42.
    Dignum, V., Dignum, F.: Perspectives on Culture and Agent-Based Simulations. Springer, Cham (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Battiston, F., Nicosia, V., Latora, V., San Miguel, M.: Layered social influence promotes multiculturality in the Axelrod model. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 1809 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Data Science and Digital TechnologiesVilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations