IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jas/jasssj/2017-91-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing the Realism of Simulation (EROS): On Implementing and Developing Psychological Theory in Social Simulation

Author

Abstract

Using psychological theory in agent formalisations is relevant to capture behavioural phenomena in simulation models (Enhance Realism Of Simulation - EROS). Whereas the potential contribution of psychological theory is important, also a number of challenges and problems in doing so are discussed. Next examples of implementations of psychological theory are being presented, ranging from simple implementations (KISS) of rather isolated theories to extended models that integrate different theoretical perspectives. The role of social simulation in developing dynamic psychological theory and integrated social psychological modelling is discussed. We conclude with some fundamental limitations and challenges concerning the modelling of human needs, cognition and behaviour.

Suggested Citation

  • Wander Jager, 2017. "Enhancing the Realism of Simulation (EROS): On Implementing and Developing Psychological Theory in Social Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(3), pages 1-14.
    • Handle: RePEc:jas:jasssj:2017-91-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jasss.org/20/3/14/14.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Gareth Polhill, 2015. "Extracting OWL Ontologies from Agent-Based Models: A Netlogo Extension," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(2), pages 1-15.
    2. Julija Vasiljevska & Jochem Douw & Anna Mengolini & Igor Nikolic, 2017. "An Agent-Based Model of Electricity Consumer: Smart Metering Policy Implications in Europe," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12.
    3. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2002. "Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(3), pages 1-2.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dehua Gao & Flaminio Squazzoni & Xiuquan Deng, 2018. "The role of cognitive artifacts in organizational routine dynamics: an agent-based model," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 473-499, December.
    2. Foramitti, Joël & Savin, Ivan & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2024. "How carbon pricing affects multiple human needs: An agent-based model analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    3. Firouzeh Taghikhah & Tatiana Filatova & Alexey Voinov, 2021. "Where Does Theory Have It Right? A Comparison of Theory-Driven and Empirical Agent Based Models," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 24(2), pages 1-4.
    4. Robert Huber & Hang Xiong & Kevin Keller & Robert Finger, 2022. "Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio‐economic modelling in an agent‐based modelling framework," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 35-63, February.
    5. Chappin, Emile J.L. & Schleich, Joachim & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Faure, Corinne & Bouwmans, Ivo, 2022. "Linking of a multi-country discrete choice experiment and an agent-based model to simulate the diffusion of smart thermostats," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    6. Foramitti, Joël, 2023. "A framework for agent-based models of human needs and ecological limits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Niamir, Leila & Filatova, Tatiana & Voinov, Alexey & Bressers, Hans, 2018. "Transition to low-carbon economy: Assessing cumulative impacts of individual behavioral changes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 325-345.
    2. Buechel, Berno & Hellmann, Tim & Klößner, Stefan, 2015. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under conformity," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 240-257.
    3. Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Taalaibekova, Akylai, 2019. "Opinion formation and targeting when persuaders have extreme and centrist opinions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 9-27.
    4. Shang, Lihui & Zhao, Mingming & Ai, Jun & Su, Zhan, 2021. "Opinion evolution in the Sznajd model on interdependent chains," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 565(C).
    5. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    6. Andreas Koulouris & Ioannis Katerelos & Theodore Tsekeris, 2013. "Multi-Equilibria Regulation Agent-Based Model of Opinion Dynamics in Social Networks," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 11(1), pages 51-70.
    7. Thomas Moore & Patrick Finley & Nancy Brodsky & Theresa Brown & Benjamin Apelberg & Bridget Ambrose & Robert Glass, 2015. "Modeling Education and Advertising with Opinion Dynamics," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(2), pages 1-7.
    8. George Butler & Gabriella Pigozzi & Juliette Rouchier, 2019. "Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-31, August.
    9. Huang, Changwei & Hou, Yongzhao & Han, Wenchen, 2023. "Coevolution of consensus and cooperation in evolutionary Hegselmann–Krause dilemma with the cooperation cost," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    10. María Cecilia Gimenez & Luis Reinaudi & Ana Pamela Paz-García & Paulo Marcelo Centres & Antonio José Ramirez-Pastor, 2021. "Opinion evolution in the presence of constant propaganda: homogeneous and localized cases," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 94(1), pages 1-11, January.
    11. Michel Grabisch & Antoine Mandel & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2023. "On the Design of Public Debate in Social Networks," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 71(2), pages 626-648, March.
    12. Kułakowski, Krzysztof, 2009. "Opinion polarization in the Receipt–Accept–Sample model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 388(4), pages 469-476.
    13. Guillaume Deffuant & Ilaria Bertazzi & Sylvie Huet, 2018. "The Dark Side Of Gossips: Hints From A Simple Opinion Dynamics Model," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-20, September.
    14. Schweitzer, Frank, 2021. "Social percolation revisited: From 2d lattices to adaptive networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 570(C).
    15. Toth, Gabor & Galam, Serge, 2022. "Deviations from the majority: A local flip model," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    16. G Jordan Maclay & Moody Ahmad, 2021. "An agent based force vector model of social influence that predicts strong polarization in a connected world," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-42, November.
    17. Yao Li & Wenhao Lin & Yucheng Dong & Cong-Cong Li & Francisco Herrera, 2024. "Consensus Reaching with Dynamic Trust Relationships and Cost-Learning in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 1269-1300, October.
    18. Diao, Su-Meng & Liu, Yun & Zeng, Qing-An & Luo, Gui-Xun & Xiong, Fei, 2014. "A novel opinion dynamics model based on expanded observation ranges and individuals’ social influences in social networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 415(C), pages 220-228.
    19. Lipiecki, Arkadiusz & Sznajd-Weron, Katarzyna, 2022. "Polarization in the three-state q-voter model with anticonformity and bounded confidence," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 165(P1).
    20. Tiwari, Mukesh & Yang, Xiguang & Sen, Surajit, 2021. "Modeling the nonlinear effects of opinion kinematics in elections: A simple Ising model with random field based study," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jas:jasssj:2017-91-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Francesco Renzini (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.