Abstract
Two important social aspects of norms are explored. Social norms happen in a social setting but the exact mechanism by which a social setting influences individual behaviour is far from clear. Social influence models on a range of topics such as opinions, drug taking, and classroom behaviour are discussed. In addition to social influence, social learning is an important way of learning behaviour. Three models on social learning are examined.
Days, weeks, months go by in which I engage in no real deliberation about what to do. Alan Goldman
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In our description of the Schelling model in the introduction, agents moved to a random free patch on the grid if their neighbourhood was not satisfactory. In the model described in Schelling (1971) the movement is not random but agents move to the nearest patch that satisfies their neighbourhood constraints, thus optimising their position similar to the Sakoda model.
References
Agar, M. (2005). Agents in living color: Towards Emic agent-based models. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 8(1), 4. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/1/4.html.
Agar, M. (2006). Dope double agent: The naked emperor on drugs. Morrisvilee: Lulubooks.
Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bosse, T., Jonker, C. M., van der Meij, L., Sharpanskykh, A., & Treur J. (2006). Specification and verification of dynamics in cognitive agent models(pp. 247–254). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Bosse, T., Gerritsen, C., & Klein, M. C. (2009). Agent-based simulation of social learning in criminology. In International conference on agents and artificial intelligence, Porto.
Bowling, M., & Veloso M. (2002). Multiagent learning using a variable learning rate. Artificial Intelligence, 136, 215–250.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal. New York: Springer.
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. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/5/4/1.html.
Elster, J. (1989). The cement of society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). On the nature of fair behaviour. Economic Inquiry, 41(1), 20–26.
Fudenberg, D., & Levine, K. (1998). The theory of learning in games. Cambridge: MIT.
Hegselmann, R., & Krause, U. (2002). Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: Models, analysis and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(3), 2. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/5/3/2.html.
Hegselmann, R., & Krause, U. (2006). Truth and cognitive division of labour: first steps towards a computer aided social epistemology. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 9(3), 10. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/3/10.html.
Hegselmann, R., & Kurz, S. (forthcoming). Checkerboards, networks and neighbourhoods – history and analysis of configuration games.
Nowak, A., Szamreja, J., & Latané, B. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97(3), 362–376.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Sakoda, J. M. (1971). The checkerboard model of social interaction. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1(1), 119–132.
Salgado, M. (2012). More than words: Computational models of emergence and evolution of symbolic communication. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Surrey.
Schelling, T. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143–186.
Sen, S., & Airiau, S. (2007). Emergence of norms through social learning. In IJCAI-07, Hyderabad.
Sogani, S., Muduganti, R., & Hexmoor, H. (2005a). Comparison of information technology adoption rates across laggards, innovators and others. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on information technology innovators and others (ITCC 2005), Las Vegas.
Sogani, S., Muduganti, R., Hexmoor, H., & F. Davis (2005b). Introducing agent based implementation of the theory of reasoned action: A case study in user acceptance of computer technology. In Knowledge intensive multi-agent systems (KIMAS), Waltham.
Tomasello, M. (2000). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Verhagen, H. (2000). Norm autonomous agents. Ph.D. thesis, Royal Institute of Technology and Stockholm University, Sweden.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1997). Wege des Wissens: Konstruktivistische Erkundungen durch unser Denken(2nd ed.). Heidelberg: Carl-Auer-Systeme Verlag.
Watkins, C., & Dayan, P. (1992). Q-learning. Machine Learning, 3, 279–292.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Elsenbroich, C., Gilbert, N. (2014). Socially Situated Social Norms. In: Modelling Norms. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7052-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7052-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7051-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7052-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)