Does Agent-based Modeling Flourish in Sociology? Mind the Gap between Social Theory and Agent-based Models

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

I propose a new theoretical framework to fill the gap between social theory and agent-based models. Agent-based models have been popular in sociology because both of them assume that interactions of actors are the key to understanding and explaining social phenomena. However, there is a gap between social theory and agent-based models. Social theory emphasizes the importance of reflexivity and meaning in sociological study because actors reflect their goals and try to discover a new goal as in the case of Protestants in Max Weber’s work. They discovered the concept of vocation (Beruf in German) and added new meanings to their occupations. Then success in their occupational life became their goal. By contrast, agent-based models have not seriously considered them. This has led agent-based models to a niche in sociology. Thus for agent-based modeling to flourish in sociology, agent-based modelers need to incorporate reflexivity and meaning in their models. To do that, two mechanisms should be analyzed: a mechanism of the move between backward-looking rationality, forward-looking rationality, and reflexivity and a mechanism in which agents discover a new goal. I apply a meta rational theory (Sato 2016) to the first mechanism and show how actors move among the three components. Then, to explore the second mechanism, I assume that agents have limited cognitive capacity and propose a dynamic process in which agents discover a new goal. My new theoretical framework will make agent-based modeling more powerful in sociological study and, therefore, more attractive to sociologists.

Keywords

Agent-based model Social theory Reflexivity Rationality 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Axelrod, Robert. 1997. The dissemination of culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (2): 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bruch, Elizabeth E., and Robert D. Mare. 2006. Neighborhood choice and neighborhood change. American Journal of Sociology 112 (3): 667–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Imada, Takatoshi. 1986. Self-organization: Revival of Social Theory Keiso Shobo. (In Japanese).Google Scholar
  6. Luhmann, Niklas. 1984. Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  7. Macy, Michael W., and John Skvoretz. 1998. The evolution of trust and cooperation between strangers: A computational model. American Sociological Review 63 (5): 638–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Macy, Michael W., and Robert Willer. 2002. From factors to actors: Computational sociology and agent-based modeling. Annual Review of Sociology 28: 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Merton, Robert K. 1949. Social theory and social structure: Toward the codification of theory and research. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Sato, Yoshimichi. 2016. “Exploring moving mechanism between forward-looking and backward-looking rational actions: Toward a meta rational choice theory.” Paper presented at the 111th American Sociological Association meeting.Google Scholar
  11. Schelling, Thomas C. 1971. Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1 (2): 143–186.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Weber, Max. 1920. Die protestantische Ethik und der \(\ll \)Geist\(\gg \) der Kapitalismus in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie, Bd. I.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Arts and LettersTohoku UniversitySendaiJapan

Personalised recommendations