Towards Primate-Like Synthetic Sociability

  • Pablo Lucas dos Anjos
  • Ruth Aylett
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4133)


This research addresses synthetic agents as autonomous software entities, capable of managing social relationships in small scale societies. An individual architecture is structurally designed as enabling primate-like social organization, which is in turn individually modulated by an affective action-selection mechanism. The aim is to improve agent social reactive, and social cognitive capabilities, by implementing plain communication conveying behavioral rewards or sanctions. This artificial society simulation is being developed as an experimental model aimed at exploring the nature of (1) the adaptation of inter-agent social norms, (2) individual behavioral arbitration, and the (3) interplay of reaction and deliberation. This computational outlook on social cognition offers a contrast with traditional socio-unaware action-selection systems, frequently based on function optimization of decision-making processes [1]. To anthropomorphize the model, social networks are analyzed in terms of situated agents and their internal states. Individuals are able to recognize current counterparts and have their community size dependent on accumulated experiences [2]; thus food and relationship management become crucial individual tasks. However, this work does not seek an ethologically realistic approach like [3] – nor does it aim at a complete account of animal or human language interaction. It rather argues for a simpler alternative to represent synthetic social intelligence. By interleaving processes of reaction and planning, agents are expected to act following their individual modulation of pre-configured abilities – dealing both with passive objects (resources) and other active characters (agents). Finally, to interpret interactions and the operation of affective feedback, essential observations and analysis are required on the (1) administration of basic social constraints and (2) processes producing social change, relating invidual behavior choices to group dynamics [4].


  1. 1.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Formalising the informal: Dynamic social order, bottom-up social control, and normative relations. Journal of Applied Logic (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dunbar, R.: Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16(4), 681–735 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hemelrijk, C.K.: Towards the integration of social dominance and spatial structure. The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Journal of Animal Behavior 9, 1035–1048 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cialdini, R.B., Trost, M.R.: Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In: Gilbert, D.T., et al. (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edn., vol. 151 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pablo Lucas dos Anjos
    • 1
  • Ruth Aylett
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Mathematical and Computer SciencesHeriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations