Skip to main content

Building Empirically Plausible Multi-Agent Systems

A Case Study of Innovation Diffusion

  • Chapter
Socially Intelligent Agents

Abstract

Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) have great potential for explaining interactions among heterogeneous actors in complex environments: the primary task of social science. I shall argue that one factor hindering realisation of this potential is the neglect of systematic data use and appropriate data collection techniques. The discussion will centre on a concrete example: the properties of MAS to model innovation diffusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bousquet, F. et al. Simulating Fishermen’s Society, In: Gilbert, N. and Doran, J. E. (Eds.) Simulating Societies London: UCL Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chamberlayne, P., Bornat, J. and Wengraf, T. (eds.) The Turn to Biographical Methods in the Social Sciences: Comparative Issues and Examples London: Routledge, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chattoe, E. Why Is Building Multi-Agent Models of Social Systems So Difficult? A Case Study of Innovation Diffusion, XXIV International Conference of Agricultural Economists IAAE, Mini-Symposium on Integrating Approaches for Natural Resource Management and Policy Analysis, Berlin, 13–19 August, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chattoe, E. and Heath, A. A New Approach to Social Mobility Models: Simulation as “Reverse Engineering” Presented at the BSA Conference, Manchester Metropolitan University, 9–12 April, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chattoe, E. and Gilbert, N. A Simulation of Adaptation Mechanisms in Budgetary Decision Making, in Conte, R. et al. (Eds.) Simulating Social Phenomena Berlin: SpringerVerlag, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davis, J. A. What’s Wrong with Sociology? Sociological Forum, 9:179–197, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. De Vaus, D. A. Surveys in Social Research, 3rd ed. London: UCL Press, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Doran J. E. From Computer Simulation to Artificial Societies, Transactions of the Society for Computer Simulation, 14:69–77, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Doran, J. E. Simulating Collective Misbelief Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1(1), <http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/1/1/3.html>, 1998.

  10. Finch, J. The Vignette Technique in Survey Research, Sociology, 21:105–114, 1987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gilbert, N. Emergence in Social Simulation, In Gilbert, N. and Conte, R. (eds.) Artificial Societies. London: UCL Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gladwin, C. H. Ethnographic Decision Tree Modelling, Sage University Paper Series on Qualitative Research Methods Vol. 19 London: Sage Publications, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hedström, P. and Swedberg, R. Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory Cambridge: CUP, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hey, J. D. Experiments in Economics Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kirchler, E. Studying Economic Decisions Within Private Households: A Critical Review and Design for a “Couple Experiences Diary”, Journal of Economic Psychology, 16:393–419, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Moss, S. Critical Incident Management: An Empirically Derived Computational Model, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1(4), <http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/1/4/1.html>, 1998.

  17. Ranyard, R. and Craig, G. Evaluating and Budgeting with Instalment Credit: An Interview Study, Journal of Economic Psychology, 16:449–467, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wilkinson, S. Focus Group Methodology: A Review, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1:181–203, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wood, L. A. and Kroger, R. O. Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text London: Sage Publications, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wooffitt, R. and Hutchby, I. Conversation Analysis Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chattoe, E. (2002). Building Empirically Plausible Multi-Agent Systems. In: Dautenhahn, K., Bond, A., Cañamero, L., Edmonds, B. (eds) Socially Intelligent Agents. Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations, vol 3. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47373-9_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47373-9_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-7057-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-306-47373-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics