Modelling Agents’ Risk Perception

  • Nuno Trindade MagessiEmail author
  • Luis Antunes
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 217)


One of the open issues in risk literature is the difference between risk perception and effective risk, especially when the risk is clearly defined and measured. Until now, the main focus has been given on the behaviour of individuals and the evidences of their biases according to some stimulus. Consequently, it is important to analyse what are the main reasons for those biases and identify the dimensions and mechanisms involved. To that purpose, we tackle the classic problem of tax fraud as a case study. In this paper, we will look into how agent based modelling methodology can help unfold the reasons why individuals commit errors of judgment when risk is involved.


Risk Aversion Risk Perception Episodic Memory Subjective Probability Modelling Agent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gilbert, D.: Stumbling on Happiness, Knopf (2006) ISBN 1400042666Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schneier, B., Fear, B.: Thinking Sensibly about Security in an Uncertain World, pp. 26–27. Copernicus, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Slovic, P.: Perception of Risk Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm. In: Krimsky, S., Golding, D. (eds.) Social Theories of Risk, pp. 117–152. Praeger, Westport (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sjöberg, L.: Consequences of perceived risk: Demand for mitigation. Journal of Risk Research 2 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S.: Why study risk perception. Risk Analysis Review 2(2) (1982)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S.: Facts and fears, Understanding the perceived risk in Scoeital risk assessment: How safe is safe enough? In: Schwing, R., Albers Jr., W.A. (eds.). Plenum, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: A The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice Science. New Series 211(4481), 453–458 (1981)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brun, W.: Risk perception: Main issues, approached and findings. In: Wright, G., Ayton, P. (eds.) Subjective Probability, pp. 395–420. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Douglas, M.: Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. Routledge, London (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Damasio, A.: Descartes’ Error Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Penguin Group (USA), Inc. (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wachinger, G., Renn, O.: Risk Perception and Natural Hazards. Cap-Haz-Net WP3 Report, DIALOGIK Non-Profit Institute for Communication and Cooperative Research, Stuttgart (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Renn, O., Rohrmann, B.: Cross-Cultural Risk Perception Research: State and Challenges. In: Renn, O., Rohrmann, B. (eds.) Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies, pp. 211–233. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Renn, O.: Risk governance. Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, London (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Breakwell, G.M.: The psychology of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freeman, W.: The brain transforms sensory messages into conscious perceptions almost instantly Chaotic, collective activity involving millions of neurons seems essential for such rapid recognition. Scientific American 264(2), 78–85 (1991)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Christopoulos, G., Schultz, W.: Neural Correlates of Value, Risk, and Risk Aversion Contributing to Decision Making under Risk. Journal of Neuro-science 26(24), 6469–6472 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kirchler, E., Muehlbacher, S., Kastlunger, B., Wahl, I.: Why Pay Taxes? A Review of Tax Compliance Decisions Andrew Young School of Policy Studies. Georgia State University (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sandmo, A.: The Theory of Tax Evasion: A Retrospective View. National Tax Journal LVIIl(4) ( December 2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Allingham, M.G., Sandmo, A.: Income tax evasion: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Public Economics 1(3-4), 323–338 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feld, L.P., Frey, B.: Trust Breeds Trust: How Taxpayers Are Treated. Economics of Governance 3, 87–99 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spicer, M.W., Hero, R.E.: Tax evasion and heuristics: a research note. Journal of Public Economics 26(2), 263–267 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mittone, L.: Dynamic behaviour in tax evasion: An experimental approach. The Journal of Socio-Economics 35(5), 813–835 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, New Series 185(4157), 1124–1131 (1974)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spicer, M.W., Lundstedt, S.B.: Understanding tax evasion. Public Finance 21(2), 295–305 (1976)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mittone, L., Patelli, P.: Imitative behaviour in tax evasion. In: Stefansson, B., Luna, F. (eds.) Economic Simulations in Swarm: Agent-based Modelling and Object Oriented Programming, pp. 133–158. Kluwer, Amsterdam (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Davis, J.S., Hecht, G., Perkins, J.D.: Social behaviors, enforcement and tax compliance dynamics. Accounting Review 78, 39–69 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bloomquist, K. M.: Modeling taxpayers response to compliance improvement alternatives. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the North American Association for Computational Social and Organizational Science (NAACSOS), Pittsburgh, PA (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Antunes, L., Balsa, J., Urbano, P., Moniz, L., Roseta-Palma, C.: Tax compliance in a simulated heterogeneous multi-agent society. In: Sichman, J.S., Antunes, L. (eds.) MABS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3891, pp. 147–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2006a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Korobow, A., Johnson, C., Axtell, R.: An Agent Based Model of Tax Compliance with Social Networks. National Tax Journal LX(3), 589–610 (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zaklan, G., Lima, F.W.S., Westerhoff, F.: Controlling tax evasion fluctuations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 387, 5857–5861 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zaklan, G., Westerhoff, F., Stauffer, D.: Analysing tax evasion dynamics via the Ising model. Journal of Economic of Coordination and Interaction 4, 1–14 (2009a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Szabó, A., Gulyás, L., Tóth, I.J.: TAXSIM Agent Based Tax Evasion Simulator. In: 5th European Social Simulation Association Conference, ESSA 2008 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GUESS/LabMagUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations