Social Construction of Knowledge

  • Corinna Elsenbroich
  • Nigel Gilbert


A second model of the social situatedness of norms is described. In this, not only the social network influences on agents’ choices, but also the feedback dynamics between an agent’s conceptualisation of the world and its social network, are modelled.


Social Networking Site Winning Strategy Friendship Network Opinion Dynamic Formal Dialogue 
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. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. In J. Kuhli & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action—control: From cognition to behaviour (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Carley, K. M. (1986). Knowledge acquisition as a social phenomenon. Instructional Science, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 14(4), 381–438.Google Scholar
  3. Deffuant, G., Amblard, F., Weisbuch, G., & Faure, T. (2002). How can extremism prevail? A study based on the relative agreement interaction model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(4), 1.
  4. Dykstra, P., Elsenbroich C., Jager, W., de Lavalette, G. R., & Verbrugge, R. (2009). A dialogical logic-based simulation architecture for social agents and the emergence of extremist behaviour. In Proceedings of the European social simulation association annual conference 2009. Guildford, UK: University of Surrey.Google Scholar
  5. Dykstra, P., Elsenbroich, C., Jager, W., Renardel de Lavalette, G., & Verbrugge, R. (2013). Put your money where your mouth is: DIAL, a dialogical model for opinion dynamics. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 16(3), 4.
  6. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamill, L. (2010). Communications, travel and social networks since 1840: A study using agent-based models. Ph. D. thesis, University of Surrey.Google Scholar
  8. Hamill, L., & Gilbert, N. (2009). Social circles: A simple structure for agent-based social network models. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 12(2), 3.Google Scholar
  9. Hegselmann, R., & Krause, U. (2002). Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: Models, analysis and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(3), 2.
  10. Kamlah, W., & Lorenzen, P. (1973). Logische Propädeutik. B.I.-Wissenschaftsverlag, Mun̈chen, Wien, Zur̈ich.Google Scholar
  11. Lazarfeld, P., & Merton, R. K. (2002). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger, T. Abel, & C. H. Page (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  12. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2003). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Thelwall, M. (2009). Homophily in myspace. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Urbig, D., Lorenz, J., & Herzberg, H. (2008). Opinion dynamics: The effect of the number of peers met at once. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 11(2), 4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Corinna Elsenbroich
    • 1
  • Nigel Gilbert
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sociology Centre for Research in Social Simulation (CRESS)University of SurreyGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations