Modeling Social Deviance in Artificial Agent Societies

  • J. Octavio Gutierrez-GarciaEmail author
  • Emmanuel Lopez-Neri
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9571)


Rule-governed artificial agent societies consisting of autonomous members are susceptible to rule violations, which can be seen as the acts of agents exercising their autonomy. As a consequence, modeling and allowing deviance is relevant, in particular, when artificial agent societies are used as the basis for agent-based social simulation. This work proposes a belief framework for modeling social deviance in artificial agent societies by taking into account both endogenous and exogenous factors contributing to rule compliance. The objective of the belief framework is to support the simulation of social environments where agents are susceptible to adopt rule-breaking behaviors. In this work, endogenous, exogenous and hybrid decision models supported by the event calculus formalism were implemented in an agent-based simulation model. Finally, a series of simulations was conducted in order to perform a sensitivity analysis of the agent-based simulation model.


Artificial agent societies Social deviance Agent-based social simulation Rule-breaking behaviors 



The first author acknowledges the support provided by Asociación Mexicana de Cultura, A.C. and CONACYT under grant 216101. The second author wishes to thank UVM Laureate International Universities for their support.


  1. 1.
    Artikis, A., Pitt, J., Sergot, M.: Animated specifications of computational societies. In: International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: Part 3, pp. 1053–1061. ACM Press (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: Specifying norm-governed computational societies. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 10(1), 1 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asch, S.E.: Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgements. In: Guetzkow, H. (ed.) Groups, Leadership, and Men, pp. 222–236. Carnegie Press, Pittsburgh (1951)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boella, G., Van der Torre, L.: Fulfilling or violating obligations in normative multiagent systems. In: IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 483–486. IEEE Press (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cialdini, R.B., Kallgren, C.A., Reno, R.R.: A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 24(20), 1–243 (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davidsson, P.: Agent based social simulation: a computer science view. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 5(1) (2002). Accessed 28 March 2016
  7. 7.
    Deguchi, T.: A simulation of rule-breaking behavior in public places. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 32(4), 439–452 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dignum, V., Dignum, F.P.: Modelling agent societies: co-ordination frameworks and institutions. In: Brazdil, P.B., Jorge, A.M. (eds.) EPIA 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2258, pp. 191–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freeman, J., McMaster, M., Rakotonirainy, A.: An exploration into younger and older pedestrians’ risky behaviours at train level crossings. Safety 1(1), 16–27 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerber, C.: An artificial agent society is more than a collection of “social” agents. Technical report, AAAI Fall Symposium (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gutierrez-Garcia, J.O., Rodríguez, L.F.: Corruptible social agents. Comput. Anim. Virtual Worlds (2014). doi: 10.1002/cav.1613 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hammond, R.: Endogenous transition dynamics in corruption: an agent-based computer model. Working paper no. 19, Center on Social and Economic Dynamics, pp. 1–18 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riveret, R., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Probabilistic rule-based argumentation for norm-governed learning agents. Artif. Intell. Law 20(4), 383–420 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: Review on computational trust and reputation models. Artif. Intell. Rev. 24(1), 33–60 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Situngkir, H., Khanafiah, D.: Theorizing corruption through agent-based modeling. In: Joint International Conference on Information Sciences, pp. 1–4. Atlantis Press, Paris (2006). doi: 10.2991/jcis.2006.183
  16. 16.
    van der Torre, L.: Contextual deontic logic: normative agents, violations and independence. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 37(1–2), 33–63 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilensky, U.: NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL (1999).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Octavio Gutierrez-Garcia
    • 1
    Email author
  • Emmanuel Lopez-Neri
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceInstituto Tecnológico Autónomo de MéxicoMexico, DFMexico
  2. 2.CIDETEC-UVM, Universidad del Valle de México, Guadalajara Sur CampusTlaquepaqueMexico

Personalised recommendations