IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v19y2014i1p159-174.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Agent Based Modelling to Integrate Data on Attitude Change

Author

Listed:
  • Edmund Chattoe-Brown

Abstract

This article has two goals. Firstly, it shows how a relatively novel technique (Agent Based Modelling, hereafter ABM) can integrate different data types that are often used only in separate strands of research (interviews, experiments and surveys). It does this by comparing a well-known ABM of attitude dynamics with an alternative model using data from surveys and experiments. Secondly, the article explains ABM methodology and why it is important to the distinctiveness of ABM as a research method. In particular, the ramifications of differing approaches to ABM calibration and validation are discussed using the two different ABM as examples. The article concludes by showing how ABM might provide a progressive research strategy for integrating different data types and thus different disciplines in attitude research.

Suggested Citation

  • Edmund Chattoe-Brown, 2014. "Using Agent Based Modelling to Integrate Data on Attitude Change," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 19(1), pages 159-174, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:19:y:2014:i:1:p:159-174
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.3315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.3315
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.3315?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ebonya Washington & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2009. "Sticking with Your Vote: Cognitive Dissonance and Political Attitudes," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 86-111, January.
    2. Erez Hatna & Itzhak Benenson, 2012. "The Schelling Model of Ethnic Residential Dynamics: Beyond the Integrated - Segregated Dichotomy of Patterns," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 15(1), pages 1-6.
    3. Guillaume Deffuant & Frederic Amblard & Gérard Weisbuch, 2002. "How Can Extremism Prevail? a Study Based on the Relative Agreement Interaction Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(4), pages 1-1.
    4. Gary Mckeown & Noel Sheehy, 2006. "Mass Media and Polarisation Processes in the Bounded Confidence Model of Opinion Dynamics," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11.
    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. Carlos Andres Devia & Giulia Giordano, 2023. "Classification-Based Opinion Formation Model Embedding Agents’ Psychological Traits," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 26(3), pages 1-1.
    2. Liu, Yun & Onggo, Bhakti Stephan & Busby, Jerry, 2024. "Agent-based modelling of user engagement in new product development," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).

    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. Zhang, Tianyu & Dong, Peiwu & Zeng, Yongchao & Ju, Yanbing, 2022. "Analyzing the diffusion of competitive smart wearable devices: An agent-based multi-dimensional relative agreement model," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 90-105.
    2. Fernanda L L de Leon, 2013. "Adding Ideology to the Equation: New Predictions for Election Results under Compulsory Voting," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 044, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    3. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    4. Hicken, Allen & Leider, Stephen & Ravanilla, Nico & Yang, Dean, 2018. "Temptation in vote-selling: Evidence from a field experiment in the Philippines," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 1-14.
    5. Michael T Gastner & Károly Takács & Máté Gulyás & Zsuzsanna Szvetelszky & Beáta Oborny, 2019. "The impact of hypocrisy on opinion formation: A dynamic model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-21, June.
    6. Qingxu Huang & Dawn C Parker & Tatiana Filatova & Shipeng Sun, 2014. "A Review of Urban Residential Choice Models Using Agent-Based Modeling," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 41(4), pages 661-689, August.
    7. Comin, Diego & Rode, Johannes, 2013. "From Green Users to Green Voters," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 63678, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Ethan Kaplan & Fernando Saltiel & Sergio S. Urzúa, 2019. "Voting for Democracy: Chile's Plebiscito and the Electoral Participation of a Generation," NBER Working Papers 26440, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Monica Martinez-Bravo & Carlos Sanz, 2022. "The Management of the Pandemic and its Effects on Trust and Accountability," Working Papers wp2022_2207, CEMFI.
    12. Nguyen, Trang & de Brauw, Alan & van den Berg, Marrit, 2022. "Sweet or not: Using information and cognitive dissonance to nudge children toward healthier food choices," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    13. Guy Mayraz, 2011. "Wishful Thinking," CEP Discussion Papers dp1092, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    14. 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.
    15. Ernesto Calvo & Gergely Ujhelyi, 2012. "Political Screening: Theory and Evidence from the Argentine Public Sector," Working Papers 201303201, Department of Economics, University of Houston.
    16. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp1973 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Flaminio Squazzoni, 2010. "The impact of agent-based models in the social sciences after 15 years of incursions," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(2), pages 197-234.
    18. 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.
    19. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00623966 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. 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).
    21. Daron Acemoglu & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2011. "Opinion Dynamics and Learning in Social Networks," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 3-49, March.
    22. Gosnell, Greer K., 2018. "Communicating Resourcefully: A Natural Field Experiment on Environmental Framing and Cognitive Dissonance in Going Paperless," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 128-144.

    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:sae:socres:v:19:y:2014:i:1:p:159-174. 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: SAGE Publications (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.