Human Societies: Understanding Observed Social Phenomena

  • Bruce Edmonds
  • Pablo Lucas
  • Juliette Rouchier
  • Richard Taylor
Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)

Why Read This Chapter?

To get an overview of the different ways in which simulation can be used to gain understanding of human societies and to gain insight into some of the principle issues that impinge upon such simulation, including the difficulties these cause. The chapter will go through the various specific goals one might have in doing such simulation, giving examples of each. It will provide a critical view as to the success at reaching these various goals and hence inform about the current state of such simulation projects.


The chapter begins by briefly describing two contrasting simulations: the iconic system dynamics model publicised under the “Limits to Growth” book and a detailed model of 1st millennium Native American societies in the south west of the US. These are used to bring out the issues of: abstraction, replicability, model comprehensibility, understanding vs. prediction, and the extent to which simulations go beyond what is observed. These issues and difficulties result in three “dimensions” in which simulation approaches differ. These issues are each rooted in some fundamental difficulties in the project of simulating observed societies that are then briefly discussed. The core of the chapter is a look at 15 different possible simulation goals, both abstract and concrete, giving some examples of each and discussing them. The different inputs and results from such simulations are briefly discussed as to their importance for simulating human societies. The chapter ends with a brief critical assessment of the state of the art in terms of using simulation techniques for helping to understand human societies.


Social Process Human Society Social Phenomenon Behavioural Rule Microsimulation Model 
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.


  1. Alam SJ, Meyer R, Ziervogel G, Moss S (2007) The impact of HIV/AIDS in the context of socioeconomic stressors: an evidence-driven approach. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 10(4),
  2. Axelrod R (1984) The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Axelrod R (1997) The complexity of cooperation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Axtell R, Axelrod R, Epstein JM, Cohen MD (1996) Aligning simulation models: a case study and results. Comput Math Organ Theor 1(2):123–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Axtell RL et al (2002) Population growth and collapse in a multi-agent model of the Kayenta Anasazi in Long House Valley. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99(3):7275–7279MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barreteau O et al (2013) Participatory approaches. Chapter 10 in this volumeGoogle Scholar
  7. Berman M, Nicolson C, Kofinas G, Tetlichi J, Martin S (2004) Adaptation and sustainability in a small arctic community: results of an agent-based simulation model. Arctic 57(4):401–414Google Scholar
  8. Bharwani S et al (2005) Multi-agent modelling of climate outlooks and food security on a community garden scheme in Limpopo, South Africa. Phil Trans R Soc B 360(1463):2183–2194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biggs R, Carpenter SR, Brock WA (2009) Turning back from the brink: detecting an impending regime shift in time to avert it. Proc Natl Acad Sci (PNAS) 106:826–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown L, Harding A (2002) Social modelling and public policy: application of microsimulation modelling in Australia. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 5(4),
  11. Cartwright N (1993) How the laws of physics lie. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Christensen K, Sasaki Y (2008) Agent-based emergency evacuation simulation with individuals with disabilities in the population. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 11(3),
  13. Clifford J (1986) Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  14. Cole HSD, Freeman C, Jahoda M, Pavitt KL (eds) (1973) Models of doom: a critique of the Limits to Growth. Universe Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Curtis J, Frith D (2008) Exit polling in a cold climate: the BBC–ITV experience in Britain in 2005. J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc 171(3):509–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. David N (2013) Validating simulations. Chapter 8 in this volumeGoogle Scholar
  17. Deffuant G, Weisbuch G (2007) Probability distribution dynamics explaining agent model convergence to extremism. In: Edmonds B, Hernandez C, Troitzsch KG (eds) Social simulation: technologies, advances and new discoveries. IGI Publishing, Hershey, pp 43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deffuant G, Neau D, Amblard F, Weisbuch G (2000) Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Adv Complex Syst 3(1):87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Doran JE (1997) Foreknowledge in artificial societies. In: Conte R, Hegselmann R, Tierna P (eds) Simulating social phenomena. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems, 456. Springer, Berlin, pp 457–469Google Scholar
  20. Dunbar RIM (1998) The social brain hypothesis. Evol Anthropol 6(5):178–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edmonds B (1999) The pragmatic roots of context. In: Bouquet P, Serafini L, Brezillon P, Benerecetti M, Castellani F (eds) Modelling and using context. Second international and interdisciplinary conference, CONTEXT’99, Trento, Italy, 9–11 Sept 1999, Proceedings. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, 1688. Springer, Berlin, pp 119–132,
  22. Edmonds B (2001) The use of models – making MABS actually work. In: Moss S, Davidsson P (eds) Multi agent based simulation. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, 1979. Springer, Berlin pp 15–32Google Scholar
  23. Edmonds B (2007) The practical modelling of context-dependent causal processes – a recasting of Robert Rosen’s thought. Chem Biodivers 4(1):2386–2395MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Edmonds B (2010) Context and social simulation. Paper presented at the IV edition of epistemological perspectives on simulation (EPOS2010), Hamburg, 23–25 June 2010,
  25. Edmonds B, Hales D (2003) Replication, replication and replication – some hard lessons from model alignment. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(4),
  26. Edmonds B, Hales D (2005) Computational simulation as theoretical experiment. J Math Sociol 29(3):209–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Edmonds B, Moss S (2005) From KISS to KIDS – an ‘anti-simplistic’ modelling approach. In: Davidsson P et al (eds) Multi agent based simulation 2004. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, 3415. Springer, Berlin, pp 130–144Google Scholar
  28. Epstein J (2008) Why model? J Artif Soc Soc Simul 11(4).
  29. Etienne M (2003) SYLVOPAST: a multiple target role-playing game to assess negotiation processes in sylvopastoral management planning. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(2),
  30. Galam S (1997) Rational group decision making: a random field Ising model at T =0. Physica A 238:66–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Galán JM et al (2009) Errors and artefacts in agent-based modelling. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 12(1),
  32. Gilbert N, Troitzsch K (2005) Simulation for the social scientist, 2nd edn. Open University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Gode DK, Sunder S (1993) Allocative efficiency of markets with zero intelligence traders: markets as a partial substitute for individual rationality. J Polit Econ 110:119–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grimm V et al (2005) Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Science 310(5750):987–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grimm V et al (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Model 198(1–2):115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grimm V, Polhill JG, Touza J (2013) Documenting social simulation models: the ODD protocol as a standard. Chapter 7 in this volumeGoogle Scholar
  37. Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, London, pp 105–117Google Scholar
  38. Guimera R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Amaral LA (2005) Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308(5722):697–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hales D (2013) Distributed computer systems. Chapter 21 in this volumeGoogle Scholar
  40. Heath B, Hill R, Ciarallo F (2009) A survey of agent-based modeling practices (January 1998 to July 2008). J Artif Soc Soc Simul 12(9),
  41. Izquierdo LR (2008) Advancing learning and evolutionary game theory with an application to social dilemmas. PhD thesis, Manchester Metropolitan University,
  42. Izquierdo SS, Izquierdo LR (2006) On the structural robustness of evolutionary models of cooperation. In: Corchado E, Yin H, Botti VJ, Fyfe C (eds) Intelligent data engineering and automated learning – IDEAL 2006, 7th international conference, Burgos, Spain, 20–23 Sept 2006, Proceedings. Lecture notes in computer science 4224. Springer, Berlin, pp 172–182Google Scholar
  43. Janssen MA (2009) Understanding artificial Anasazi. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 12(4),
  44. Kahn K, Noble H (2009) The modelling4All project – a web-based modelling tool embedded in Web 2.0. In: Dalle O et al (eds) Proceedings of SIMUTools ’09, 2nd international conference on simulation tools and techniques, Rome, 2–6 Mar 2009, ICST, Brussels, Article 50Google Scholar
  45. Kephart JO, Greenwald AR (2002) Shopbot economics. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 5(3):255–287MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kirman A (2011) Complex economics: individual and collective rationality. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Kirman A, Moulet S (2008) Impact de l’organisation du marché: Comparaison de la négociation de gré à gré et des enchères descendants. Working papers, halshs-00349034, HAL, Centre pour la communication scientifique directe,
  48. Klein G (1998) Sources of power: how people make decisions. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Kohler T (2009) Generative archaeology: how even really simple models can help in understanding the past. Invited talk at 6th conference of the European social simulation association, University of Surrey, GuildfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Kohler TA, Gumerman GJ, Reynolds RG (2005) Simulating ancient societies. Sci Am 293(1):76–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kohler TA, Varien MD, Wright A, Kuckelman KA (2008) Mesa Verde migrations: new archaeological research and computer simulation suggest why ancestral Puebloans deserted the northern Southwest United States. Am Sci 96:146–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kuhn T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  53. Lakatos I, Musgrave A (eds) (1970) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. LeBaron B (2006) Agent-based computational finance. In: Tesfatsion L, Judd KL (eds) Handbook of computational economics, vol 2. North-Holland, pp 1187–1232Google Scholar
  55. Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  56. Lorenz J (2007) Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence: a survey. Int J Mod Phys C 18(12):1819–1838zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lucas P (2013) Conventional social behaviour amongst microfinance clients. PhD thesis, Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan UniversityGoogle Scholar
  58. Lucas P (2011) Usefulness of simulating social phenomena: evidence. AI Soc 26(4):355–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Malthus T (1798) An essay on the principle of population. Johnson, London, Transcript available online at Google Scholar
  60. Marks RE (2007) Validating simulation models: a general framework and four applied examples. Comput Econ 30(3):265–290MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Matthews RB (2006) The people and landscape model (PALM): towards full integration of human decision-making and biophysical simulation models. Ecol Model 194:329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Meadows DH, Meadows D, Randers J, Behrens WWIII (1972) The Limits to Growth: a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Moss S (1998) Critical incident management: an empirically derived computational model. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 1(4),
  64. Moss S (1999) Relevance, realism and rigour: a third way for social and economic research. Report no. CPM-99-56. Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester,
  65. Newell A (1990) Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  66. Nicolaisen J, Petrov V, Tesfatsion L (2001) Market power and efficiency in a computational electricity market with discriminatory double-auction pricing. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 5(5):504–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Phelps S, McBurney P, Parsons S, Sklar E (2002) Co-evolutionary auction mechanism design: a preliminary report. In: Padget J, Shehory O, Parkes D, Sadeh N, Walsh WE (eds) Agent-mediated electronic commerce IV, designing mechanisms and systems. Lecture notes in computer science, 2531. Springer, Berlin, pp 193–213Google Scholar
  68. PNAS (2002) Colloquium papers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(s3),
  69. Polhill JG, Gotts NM, Law ANR (2001) Imitative versus non-imitative strategies in a land use simulation. Cybernet Syst 32(1–2):285–307zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  70. Polhill JG, Parker D, Brown D, Grimm V (2008) Using the ODD protocol for describing three agent-based social simulation models of land-use change. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 11(2),
  71. Popper K (1963) Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  72. Riolo RL, Cohen MD, Axelrod R (2001) Evolution of cooperation without reciprocity. Nature 411:441–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Roberts G, Sherratt TN (2002) Does similarity breed cooperation? Nature 418:499–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rouchier J (2001) Est-il possible d’utiliser une définition positive de la confiance dans les interactions entre agents? Paper presented at Colloque Interactions, Toulouse, May 2001Google Scholar
  75. Rouchier J (2013) Agent-based simulation as a useful tool for the study of markets. Chapter 23 in this volumeGoogle Scholar
  76. Rouchier J, Thoyer S (2006) Votes and lobbying in the European decision-making process: application to the European regulation on GMO release. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 9(3),
  77. Rouchier J, Bousquet F, Requier-Desjardins M, Antona M, Econ J (2001) A multi-agent model for describing transhumance in North Cameroon: comparison of different rationality to develop a routine. J Econ Dyn Control 25(3–4):527–559zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Saqalli M, Bielders CL, Gerard B, Defourny P (2010) Simulating rural environmentally and socio-economically constrained multi-activity and multi-decision societies in a low-data context: a challenge through empirical agent-based modeling. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 13(2),
  79. Schelling T (1969) Models of segregation. Am Econ Rev 59(2):488–493Google Scholar
  80. Schelling T (1971) Dynamic models of segregation. J Math Sociol 1:143–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Scherer A, McLean A (2002) Mathematical models of vaccination. Br Med Bull 62(1):187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Snijders TAB, Steglich CEG, van de Bunt GG (2010) Introduction to actor-based models for network dynamics. Soc Networks 32:44–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sun R (2005) Theoretical status of computational cognitive modelling. Technical report, Cognitive Science Department, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  84. Taylor R, Takama T, Taylor A, Ziervogel G (2009) Participatory validation of agent-based models to support policy dialogue. In: Gilbert N, Edmonds B (eds) Proceedings of the 6th European social simulation association conference, University of Surrey, GuildfordGoogle Scholar
  85. Terán O, Alvarez J, Ablan M, Jaimes M (2007) Characterising emergence of landowners in a forest reserve. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 10(3),
  86. Vermeulen PJ, de Jongh DCJ (1976) Parameter sensitivity of the ‘Limits to Growth’ world model. Appl Math Model 1(1):29–32zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. von Randow G (2003) When the centre becomes radical. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(1),
  88. White DR (1999) Controlled simulation of marriage systems. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 2(3),
  89. Yang C, Kurahashi S, Kurahashi K, Ono I, Terano T (2009) Agent-based simulation on women’s role in a family line on civil service examination in Chinese history. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 12(2):5, Google Scholar
  90. Young J, Mendizabal E (2009) Helping researchers become policy entrepreneurs – how to develop engagement strategies for evidence-based policy-making. Briefing paper, Overseas Development Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  91. Younger S (2005) Violence and revenge in Egalitarian societies. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 8(4),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce Edmonds
    • 1
  • Pablo Lucas
    • 2
  • Juliette Rouchier
    • 3
  • Richard Taylor
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre for Policy ModellingManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK
  2. 2.Geary InstituteUniversity College DublinDublinIreland
  3. 3.School of EconomicsAix-Marseille UniversityMarseilleFrance
  4. 4.Oxford Branch, Stockholm Environment InstituteOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations