Towards Conceptually Novel Oscillating Agent-Based Simulation of the Relationship Between Cultural Participation and Social Capital

  • Rimvydas LaužikasEmail author
  • Darius Plikynas
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1079)


Effective simulation and prediction of the social impact of culture is one of the most important questions in contemporary social science and formative cultural policy. After a comprehensive review of the current simulation approaches, we found an evident lack of systematic conceptual models, however. It gave an impetus to investigate some novel conceptual approaches. In general, we admit that cultural events take part in the formation of social capital via the ability to communicate behavioral information in social networks. Following the bottom-up approach, implications of the social impact of cultural events are taking place on the individual (agent or actor) level first. Consequently, the aggregated effect can be simulated and predicted for the group or society (multiagent) level as well. For several reasons, we used CIDOC-CRM cultural ontology, which gives a structured framework of main cultural entities. We discovered that relations between them are not trivial and require fundamentally different viewpoints and simulation frameworks, which would better conform to the emergent complexity of social networks. For this reason, we analyzed in more detail Youri Lotman‘s semiosphere concept and OSIMAS (an oscillations-based multiagent system) paradigm. Consequently, in the proposed agent-based conceptual model, there is employed not only classical pair-to-pair based Axelrod’s neighborhood interaction model but also a one-to-many information broadcasting model. Such conceptual approach is able to provide simulation models for the complex emergent relations between cultural participation and social capital.


Cultural participation Social capital OSIMAS CIDOC-CRM Conceptual model 



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


  1. Armbrecht, J.: Developing a scale for measuring the perceived value of cultural institutions. Cult. Trends 23(4), 252–272 (2014). Scholar
  2. Axelrod, R.: The dissemination of culture: a model with local convergence and global polarization. J. Confl. Resolut. 41(2), 203–226 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandini, S., Manzoni, S., Vizzari, G.: Toward a platform for multi-layered multi-agent situated system (MMASS)-based simulations: focusing on field diffusion. Appl. Artif. Intell. 20(2–4), 327–351 (2006). Scholar
  4. Bates, M.J.: An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models. Libr. Inform. Sci. 11(4–44), 275–297 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. Benenson, W., Harris, J.W., Stöcker, H., Lutz, H. (eds.): Handbook of Physics. Springer, New York (2006). 1st edn. 2002. Corr. 2nd printing 2006 edn.Google Scholar
  6. Bína, V., et al.: ESSnet-CULTURE European Statistical System Network on Culture. Final report (2012). Accessed 14 Apr 2019
  7. Borah, J.J.: Conceptual modeling - the missing link of simulation development. In: Proceedings of Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop (2002)Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P.: The forms of capital. In: Richardson, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the SOCIOLOGY of Education, pp. 241–258. Greenwood, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  9. Camurri, M., Mamei, M., Zambonelli, F.: Urban traffic control with co-fields. In: Weyns, D., Parunak, H.V.D., Michel, F. (eds.) E4MAS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4389, pp. 239–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  10. Centola, D.: The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329(5996), 1194–1197 (2010). Scholar
  11. De Paoli, F., Vizzari, G.: Context dependent management of field diffusion: an experimental framework. In: WOA, pp. 78–84 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. Delaney, L., Keaney, E.: Sport and social capital in the United Kingdom: statistical evidence from national and international survey data (2005). Accessed 25 Aug 2018
  13. Ellis, S., Bollo, A., Dal Pozzolo, L., Di Federico, E., Gordon, C.: Measuring cultural participation. Framework for Cultural Statistics Handbook 2 (2012). Accessed 14 Apr 2019
  14. Engbers, T.A., Thompson, M.F., Slaper, T.F.: Theory and measurement in social capital research. Soc. Indicat. Res. 132, 537–558 (2017). Scholar
  15. Fujiwara, D., Kudrna, L., Dolan, P.: Quantifying the social impacts of culture and sport (2014). Accessed 26 Nov 2018
  16. Galloway, S.: Theory-based evaluation and the social impact of the arts. Cult. Trends 18, 125–148 (2009). Scholar
  17. Grimm, V., Berger, U., DeAngelis, D.L., Polhill, J.G., Giske, J., Railsback, S.F.: The ODD protocol: a review and first update. Ecol. Modell. 221, 2760–2768 (2010). Scholar
  18. Grimm, V., Railsback, S.F.: Individual-Based Modeling and Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Helliwell, J.F., Haifang, H., Shun, W.: Social capital and well-being in times of crisis. J. Happiness Stud. 15, 145–162 (2014). Scholar
  20. Hill, K., Capriotti, K.: Social Effects of Culture: Detailed Statistical Models. Statistical Insights on the Arts, 7:1 (2008). Accessed 16 Sept 2018
  21. Kroeber, A.L., Kluckhohn, C.: Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge (1952). Accessed 26 Nov 2018
  22. Laszlo, E.: The Interconnected Universe: Conceptual Foundations of Transdisciplinary Unified Theory. World Scientific, Singapore (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Le Boeuf, P., Doerr, M., Ore, C.-E., Stead, S.: Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model. Produced by the ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group, Continued by the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group. Version 6.2.1 (2015). Accessed 26 Nov 2018
  24. Lyman, R.L.: What is the ‘process’ in cultural process and in processual archaeology? Anthropol. Theory 7(2), 217–250 (2007). Scholar
  25. Liu, J., Yu, Y., Zhang, L., Nie, C.: An overview of conceptual model for simulation and its validation. Proc. Eng. 24(2011), 152–158 (2011). Scholar
  26. Lizardo, O.: How cultural tastes shape personal networks. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71(5), 778–807 (2006). Scholar
  27. Lotman, Y.: Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. I B Tauris & Co Ltd., London (2001)Google Scholar
  28. Mamei, M., Zambonelli, F.: Field-Based Coordination for Pervasive Multiagent Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  29. Nagpal, R., Mamei, M.: Engineering amorphous computing systems. In: Bergenti, F., Gleizes, M.P., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) Methodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems, vol. 11, pp. 303–320. Springer, Boston (2004). Scholar
  30. Partal and Dunphy (2016)Google Scholar
  31. Plikynas, D., Sakalauskas, L., Laužikas, R., Miliauskas, A., Dulskis, V.: Agent-based simulation of cultural events impact on social capital dynamics. In: IntelliSys2019 Conference Proceedings in the Springer Series Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, pp. 1–8 (2019)Google Scholar
  32. Plikynas, D.: A virtual field-based conceptual framework for the simulation of complex social systems. J. Syst. Sci. Complex. 23(2), 232–248 (2010). Scholar
  33. Plikynas, D.: Oscillating agent model: quantum approach. NeuroQuantology. 13(1) (2015)Google Scholar
  34. Plikynas, D.: Introducing the Oscillations Based Paradigm: The Simulation of Agents and Social Systems, p. 325. Springer, Switzerland (2016). Scholar
  35. Plikynas, D., Basinskas, G., Laukaitis, A.: Towards oscillations-based simulation of social systems: a neurodynamic approach. Connect. Sci. 1–24 (2014). Scholar
  36. Poslad, S.: Ubiquitous Computing: Smart Devices, Environments and Interactions, 1st edn. Wiley, Chichester (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raudys, S.: Information transmission concept based model of wave propagation in discrete excitable media. Nonlinear Anal.: Model. Control 9(3), 271–289 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Robison, L.J., Schmid, A.A., Siles, M.E.: Is social capital really capital? Rev. Soc. Econ. 60(1), 1–21 (2002). Scholar
  39. Rogers, S.H., Halstead, J.M., Gardner, K.H., Carlson, C.H.: Examining walkability and social capital as indicators of quality of life at the municipal and neighborhood scales. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 6, 201–213 (2011). Scholar
  40. Scrivens, K., Smith, C.: Four interpretations of social capital: an agenda for measurement. OECD Statistics Working Papers, 2013/06 (2013).
  41. Servat, D., Drogoul, A.: Combining amorphous computing and reactive agent-based systems: a paradigm for pervasive intelligence? In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: Part 1, pp. 441–448. ACM, New York (2002).
  42. Sport: English. Oxford Living Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2019)Google Scholar
  43. Stanley, D.: The social effects of culture. Can. J. Commun. 31(1), 7–15 (2006). Accessed 26 Nov 2018
  44. Taylor, P., Davies, L., Wells, P., Gilbertson, J., Tayleur, W.: A review of the social impacts of culture and sport (2015). Accessed 26 Nov 2018
  45. Torjman, S.: Culture and recreation: links to well-being (2004). Accessed 26 Nov 2018
  46. Valente, T.W.: Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 2(2), 163–164 (1996). Scholar
  47. Wang, X., Tao, H., Xie, Z., Yi, D.: Mining social networks using wave propagation. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 19(4), 569–579 (2012). Scholar
  48. Wright, D.: Understanding Cultural Taste: Sensation, Skill and Sensibility. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang, Y., Wu, Y.: How behaviors spread in dynamic social networks. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 18(4), 419–444 (2011). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of CommunicationVilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania
  2. 2.Institute of Data Science and Digital Technologies, Faculty of Mathematics and InformaticsVilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations