To Stay or Not to Stay? Artificial Sociality in GRASP World

Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)


This paper describes an agent-based model that investigates group longevity in a population in a foundational way, using theory on social relations and culture. The model is the first application of the GRASP meta-model for social agents, containing elements of Groups, Rituals, Affiliation, Status and Power. It can be considered an exercise in artificial sociality: a culture-general, content-free baseline trust model from which to engage in more specific studies. Depending on cultural settings for individualism and power distance, as well as settings for xenophobia and for the increase of trust over group life, the GRASP world model generates a variety of patterns. Number of groups ranges from one to many, composition from random to segregated and pattern genesis from rapid to many hundreds of time steps. Parallels are discussed between patterns found in GRASP world and patterns found in societies that differ on individualism, power distance and heterogeneity.


Culture Individualism Power distance Uncertainty avoidance Xenophobia Agent-based model GRASP Status-power theory Artificial sociality 



The paper benefited from the comments of anonymous reviewers.


  1. 1.
    Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M.: Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hofstede, G.J.: Culture’s causes: the next challenge (distinguished scholar essay). Cross Cult. Manag. Int. J. 22(4), 545–569 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gilbert, N., Conte, R.: Artificial Societies: The Computer Simulation of Social Life. University College London Press, London (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choi, K.S., Im, I., Hofstede, G.J.: A cross-cultural comparative analysis of small group collaboration using mobile twitter. In: Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 65, pp. 308–318, 2016/12/01/, (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kemper, T.D.: Status, Power and Ritual Interaction; A Relational Reading of Durkheim, Goffman and Collins. Ashgate, Farnham (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hofstede, G.J.: GRASP agents: social first, intelligent later. In: AI & Society, pp. 1–9 (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deffuant, G., Carletti, T., Huet, S.: The leviathan model: absolute dominance, generalised distrust, small worlds and other patterns emerging from combining vanity with opinion propagation. JASSS. 16(1), (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grow, A., Flache, A., Wittek, R.: An agent-based model of status construction in task focused groups. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 18(2), 4 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hemelrijk, C.K.: Simple reactions to nearby neighbors and complex social behavior in primates. In: Menzel, R.F., Fischer, J. (eds.) Animal Thinking: Comparative Issues in Comparative Cognition, pp. 223–238. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pretty, J.: Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science. 302(5652), 1912 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilson, D.S., Ostrom, E., Cox, M.E.: Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 90(S), 21–32 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hofstede, G.J., Oosterkamp, E., Fritz, M.: Trust in the agri-food sector: a typology with a cultural perspective. In: Canavari, M., Fritz, M., Schiefer, G. (eds.) Food Supply Networks: Trust and E-business, p. 195. CABI, Wallingford (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hemelrijk, C.K.: The use of artificial-life models for the study of social organization. In: Thierry, B.S., Singh, M., Kaumanns, W. (eds.) Macaque Societies: A Model for the Study of Social Organization, pp. 295–313. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Minkov, M.: Cross-Cultural Analysis: the Science and Art of Comparing the World’s Modern Societies and their Cultures. Sage, Los Angeles (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Mooij, M.: Global Marketing & Advertising; Understanding Cultural Paradoxes, 5th Expanded edn. Sage (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martínez-Lozano, V.S.-M., José, A., Goudena, P.P.: A cross-cultural study of observed conflict between young children. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 42(6), 895–907 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hofstede, G.J., Student, J., Kramer, M.R.: The status–power arena: a comprehensive agent-based model of social status dynamics and gender in groups of children. AI & Soc. 1–21 (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nooteboom, B.: Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions, Failures and Figures. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brown, R.: Group Processes: Dynamics Within and Between Groups, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Malden (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hofstede, G.J.: ``GRASP world” (Version 1.0.0). CoMSES Computational Model Library. Retrieved from: (2019, April 16)
  21. 21.
    Müller, B., Bohn, F., Dreßler, G., Groeneveld, J., Klassert, C., Martin, R., Schlüter, M., Schulze,J., Weise, H., Schwarz, N.: Describing human decisions in agent-based models – ODD + D, an extension of the ODD protocol. Environ. Model Softw. 48, 37–48 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Turchin, P.: Historical Dynamics: Why States Rise and Fall. Princeton (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hofstede, G.J.: Theory in social simulation: status-power theory, national culture and emergence of the glass ceiling. In: Social Coordination: Principles, Artefacts and Theories, pp. 21–28, Exeter (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hofstede, G.J.: Culture’s causes: the next challenge. Cross Cult. Manag. Int. J. 22(4), 545–569 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social Sciences, Information Technology, Wageningen UniversityHollandsewegThe Netherlands
  2. 2.UARM, North-West UniversityVanderbijlparkSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations