Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:13:00.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

32 - Cognitive Modeling in Social Simulation

from Part IV - Computational Modeling in Various Cognitive Fields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2023

By
Ron Sun
Edited by
Ron Sun
Ron Sun
Affiliation:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York
Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses cognitive social simulation, which lies at the intersection of cognitive modeling and social simulation – two forms of computational modeling. Cognitive modeling focuses on producing precise computational models of individual mental processes, while social simulation centers on models of social processes (such as interaction of individuals or collective decision making). By combining cognitive and social models, cognitive social simulation is poised to address issues concerning both individuals and society. Detailed simulation enables precise analysis of possible scenarios and outcomes (social or individual). A number of examples of cognitive social simulation are sketched in this chapter. Issues involved are discussed. Some promising directions are outlined.

Keywords

social simulationsocial sciencescognitive modelingcognitive architecturemindsocietysimulation
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Computational Cognitive Sciences , pp. 1064 - 1087
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdelzaher, T., Han, J., Hao, Y., et al. (2020). Multiscale online media simulation with SocialCube. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 26, 145–174.Google Scholar
Alexander, J., Giesen, B., Munch, R., & Smelser, N. (Eds.). (1987). The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Allen, J., & Sun, R. (2016). Emotion contagion in a cognitive architecture. In Jin, Y. & Kollias, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of IEEE Symposium Series in Computational Intelligence. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: an interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109 (4), 619–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The Atomic Components of Thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Atran, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2004). Religion’s evolutionary landscape: counterintuition, commitment, compassion, and communion. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 27, 713–770.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1997). Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. In Conte, R., Hegselmann, R., & Terna, P. (Eds.), Simulating Social Phenomena (pp. 21–40). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axtell, R., Axelrod, J., & Cohen, M. (1996). Aligning simulation models: a case study and results. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1 (2), 123–141.Google Scholar
Balke, T., & Gilbert, N. (2014). How do agents make decisions? A survey. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 17(4). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/17/4/13.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bourgais, M., Taillandier, P., Vercouter, L., & Adam, C. (2018). Emotion modeling in social simulation: a survey. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 21 (2). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/21/2/5.htmlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, P., & Ramble, C. (2001). Cognitive templates for religious concepts: cross-cultural evidence for recall of counter-intuitive representations. Cognitive Science, 25, 535–564.Google Scholar
Brekhus, W., & Ignatow, G. (2019). The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Sociology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bretz, S., & Sun, R. (2018). Two models of moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 42, 4–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brousmiche, K. L., Kant, J. D., Sabouret, N., & Prenot-Guinard, F. (2016). From beliefs to attitudes: Polias, a model of attitude dynamics based on cognitive modeling and field data. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 19 (4). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/19/4/2.htmlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Rabin, M. (Eds.) (2003). Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carley, K., & Newell, A. (1994). The nature of social agent. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 19 (4), 221–262.Google Scholar
Carley, K., Prietula, M. J., & Lin, Z. (1998). Design versus cognition: the interaction of agent cognition and organizational design on organizational performance. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1 (3). www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/1/3/4.htmlGoogle Scholar
Castelfranchi, C. (2001). The theory of social functions: challenges for computational social science and multi-agent learning. Cognitive Systems Research, 2 (1), 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecconi, F., & Parisi, D. (1998). Individual versus social survival strategies. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1 (2). www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/1/2/1.htmlGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. (2009). Influence: Science and Practice. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Clancey, W. J., Linde, C., Seah, C., & Shafto, M. (2013). Work Practice Simulation of Complex Human-Automation Systems in Safety Critical Situations: The Brahms Generalized Überlingen Model. NASA Technical Publication 2013-216508, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Clancey, W., Sierhuis, M., Damer, B., & Brodsky, B. (2006). Cognitive modeling of social behaviors. In Sun, R. (Ed.), Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction: From Cognitive Modeling to Social Simulation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cole, J., Ghafurian, M., & Reitter, D. (2019). Word adoption in online communities. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 6 (1), 178–188. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSS.2018.2889493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conte, R., Andrighetto, G., & Campennl, M. (2013). Minding Norms: Mechanisms and Dynamics of Social Order in Agent Societies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Conte, R., & Giardini, F. (2016). Towards computational and behavioral social science. European Psychologist, 21 (2), 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conte, R., Hegselmann, R., & Terna, P. (Eds.). (1997). Simulating Social Phenomena. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
D’Andrade, R. G., & Strauss, C. (Eds). (1992). Human Motives and Cultural Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dignum, M. V., Tranier, J. F. R., & Dignum, F. P. M. (2010). Simulation of intermediation using rich cognitive agents. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 18, 1526–1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23 , 263–288.Google Scholar
Doran, J., Palmer, M., Gilbert, N., & Mellars, P. (1994). The EOS project: modeling upper Palaeolithic social change. In Gilbert, N. & Doran, J. (Eds.), Simulating Societies. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Edmonds, B. (2014). Contextual cognition in social simulation. In Brézillon, P. & Gonzalez, A. (Eds.), Context in Computing. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Edmonds, B. (2020). Co‑developing beliefs and social influence networks—towards understanding socio‑cognitive processes like Brexit. Quality & Quantity, 54, 491–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00891-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsenbroich, C., & Gilbert, N. (2014). Modelling Norms. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Epstein, J., & Axtell, R. (1996). Growing Artificial Societies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erisen, C., Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2014). Affective contagion in effortful political thinking. Political Psychology, 35 (2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00937.xGoogle Scholar
Estes, W. (1972). Research and theory on the learning of probabilities. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67, 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, E. B., & Bassett, D. S. (2017). Brain and social networks: fundamental building blocks of human experience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21 (9), 674–690.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N., & Doran, J. (1994). Simulating Societies: The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Goldspink, C. (2000). Modelling social systems as complex: towards a social simulation meta-model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 3 (2). www.jasss.org/3/2/1.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gong, T., Shuai, L., & Zhang, M. (2014). Modelling language evolution: examples and predictions. Physics of Life Reviews, 11 (2), 280–302.Google Scholar
Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., Kuljanin, G., Kozlowski, S. W., & Chao, G. T. (2016). The dynamics of team cognition: a process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1353–1385.Google Scholar
Gratch, J., Mao, W., & Marsella, S. (2006). Modeling social emotions and social attributions. In Sun, R. (Ed.), Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction: From Cognitive Modeling to Social Simulation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegselmann, R., & Krause, U. (2002). Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: models, analysis, and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5 (3). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/5/3/2.htmlGoogle Scholar
Helmhout, M. (2006). The social cognitive actor: a multi-actor simulation of organisations. Ph.D Thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The Weirdest People in the World? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3rd ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: a cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (3), 349–366.Google Scholar
Jager, W. (2017). Enhancing the realism of simulation (EROS): on implementing and developing psychological theory in social simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20 (3). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/20/3/14.htmlGoogle Scholar
Juvina, I., Lebiere, C., & Gonzalez, C. (2015). Modeling trust dynamics in strategic interaction. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4 (3), 197–211.Google Scholar
Juvina, I., Lebiere, C., Martin, J. M., & Gonzalez, C. (2011). Intergroup prisoner’s dilemma with intragroup power dynamics. Games, 2, 21–51.Google Scholar
Kahan, J., & Rapoport, A. (1984). Theories of Coalition Formation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kaidesoja, T., Sarkia, M., & Hyyryläinen, M. (2019). Arguments for the cognitive social sciences. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 49 (4), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12226Google Scholar
Kenrick, D., Li, N., & Butner, J. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychological Review, 110 (1), 3–28.Google Scholar
Kim, S., Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2010). A computational model of the citizen as motivated reasoner: modeling the dynamics of the 2000 presidential election. Political Behavior, 32, 1–28.Google Scholar
Kluver, J., Malecki, R., Schmidt, J., & Stoica, C. (2003). Sociocultural evolution and cognitive ontogenesis: a sociocultural-cognitive algorithm. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 9, 255–273.Google Scholar
Kohler, T. A., & Gumerman, G. J. (2000). Dynamics in Human and Primate Societies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108 (3), 480–498.Google Scholar
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2013). New Developments in Goal Setting and Task Performance. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2013). The Rationalizing Voter. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G., Rick, S., & Cohen, J. (2008). Neuroeconomics. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 59, 647–672. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093710Google Scholar
Lotem, A., Halpern, J. Y., Edelman, S., & Kolodny, O. (2017). The evolution of cognitive mechanisms in response to cultural innovations. PNAS, 114 (30), 7915–7922.Google Scholar
Mason, W., Conrey, F., & Smith, E. (2007). Situating social influence processes: dynamic, multidirectional flows of influence within social networks. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11 (3), 279–300.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L., & Atran, S. (2004). The native mind: biological categorization and reasoning in development and across cultures. Psychological Review, 111, 960–983.Google Scholar
Mithen, S. (1996). The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion, and Science. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Moss, S. (1999). Relevance, realism and rigour: a third way for social and economic research. CPM Report No. 99-56. Center for Policy Analysis, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
Moss, S., & Davidsson, P. (Eds.). (2001). Multi-Agent-Based Simulation. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Muthukrishna, M., & Schaller, M. (2020). Are collectivistic cultures more prone to rapid transformation? Computational models of cross-cultural differences, social network structure, dynamic social influence, and cultural change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24 (2), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newell, A. (1990). Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108 (2), 291–310.Google Scholar
Nowak, A., Gelfand, M. J., Borkowski, W., Cohen, D., & Hernandez, I. (2016). The evolutionary basis of honor cultures. Psychological Science, 27 (1), 12–24.Google Scholar
Nyborg, K., Anderies, J. M., Dannenberg, A., et al. (2016). Social norms as solutions: policies may influence large-scale behavioral tipping. Science, 354 (6308), 42–43.Google Scholar
Parunak, H. V. D., Brooks, S. H., Brueckner, S. A., Gupta, R., & Li, L. (2014). Dynamically tracking the real world in an agent-based model. Multi-Agent-Based Simulation, XIV, 3–16.Google Scholar
Pew, R., & Mavor, A. (Eds). (1998). Modeling Human and Organizational Behavior: Application to Military Simulations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Plott, C. R., & Smith, V. L. (2008). Handbook of Experimental Economics Results (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Prietula, M., Carley, K., & Gasser, L. (Eds.). (1998). Simulating Organizations: Computational Models of Institutions and Groups. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Red’ko, V. G. (2015). Modeling of cognitive evolution: perspective direction of interdisciplinary investigation. Procedia Computer Science, 71, 215–220.Google Scholar
Reynolds, R. (1994). Learning to co-operate using cultural algorithms. In Gilbert, N. & Doran, J. (Eds.), Simulating Societies: The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. (2003). Multiagent systems and the micro-macro link in sociological theory. Sociological Methods and Research, 31 (3), 325–363.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (2006). Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Schreiber, D. (2004). A hybrid model of political cognition. Paper presented at Midwestern Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
Schultheis, H. (2021). Computational cognitive modeling in the social sciences. In Engel, U., Quan-Haase, A., Liu, S., & Lyberg, L. E. (Eds.), Handbook of Computational Social Science (Vol. 1). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shell, D., & Mataric, M. (2006). Behavior-based methods for modeling and structuring control of social robots. In Sun, R. (Ed.), Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction: From Cognitive Modeling to Social Simulation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Silver, D., Schrittwieser, J., Simonyan, K., et al. (2017). Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge. Nature, 550 (7676), 354–359.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Hirschfeld, L. (2004). The cognitive foundations of cultural stability and diversity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8 (1), 40–46.Google Scholar
Strandell, J. (2019). Bridging the vocabularies of dual-process models of culture and cognition. In Brekhus, W. & Ignatow, G., (Eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Sociology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sun, R. (2001). Cognitive science meets multi-agent systems: a prolegomenon. Philosophical Psychology, 14 (1), 5–28.Google Scholar
Sun, R. (Ed.). (2006). Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction: From Cognitive Modeling to Social Simulation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sun, R. (Ed.). (2008). The Cambridge Handbook of Computational Psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sun, R. (Ed.). (2012). Grounding Social Sciences in Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sun, R. (2016). Anatomy of the Mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sun, R. (2018). Cognitive social simulation for policy making. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5 (2), 240–246.Google Scholar
Sun, R. (2020a). Full human-machine symbiosis and truly intelligent cognitive systems. AI and Society, 35 (1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0775-7Google Scholar
Sun, R. (2020b). Exploring culture from the standpoint of a cognitive architecture. Philosophical Psychology, 33 (2), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2020.1719054Google Scholar
Sun, R., Coward, A., & Zenzen, M. (2005). On levels of cognitive modeling. Philosophical Psychology, 18 (5), 613–637.Google Scholar
Sun, R., & Fleischer, P. (2012). A cognitive social simulation of tribal survival strategies: the importance of cognitive and motivational factors. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 12 (3–4), 287–321.Google Scholar
Sun, R., & Naveh, I. (2004). Simulating organizational decision making with a cognitive architecture Clarion. Journal of Artificial Society and Social Simulation, 7 (3). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/7/3/5.htmlGoogle Scholar
Sun, R., & Naveh, I. (2007). Social institution, cognition, and survival: a cognitive-social simulation. Mind and Society, 6 (2), 115–142.Google Scholar
Sun, R., & Wilson, N. (2014). A model of personality should be a cognitive architecture itself. Cognitive Systems Research, 29–30, 1–30.Google Scholar
Sun, R., Wilson, N., & Lynch, M. (2016). Emotion: a unified mechanistic interpretation from a cognitive architecture. Cognitive Computation, 8 (1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Tani, J. (2016). Exploring Robotic Minds: Actions, Symbols, and Consciousness as Self-Organizing Dynamic Phenomena. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (2019). Mind-Society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thagard, P., & Kroon, F. W. (2006). Emotional consensus in group decision making. Mind and Society, 5 (1), 85–104.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. (2016). Behavioral economics: past, present, and future. American Economic Review, 106 (7), 1577–1600. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.106.7.1577Google Scholar
Turner, M. (2001). Cognitive Dimensions of Social Science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Overwalle, F., & Heylighen, F. (2006). Talking nets: a multiagent connectionist approach to communication and trust between individuals. Psychological Review, 113 (3), 606–627.Google Scholar
Vernon, D. (2014). Artificial Cognitive Systems: A Primer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vu, T. M., Probst, C., Nielsen, A., et al. (2020). A software architecture for mechanism-based social systems modelling in agent-based simulation models. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 23 (3). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/23/3/1.htmlGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Watts, C., & Gilbert, N. (2014). Simulating Innovation: Computer-Based Tools for Rethinking Innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
West, R., Lebiere, C., & Bothell, D. (2006). Cognitive architectures, game playing, and human evolution. In Sun, R. (Ed.), Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction: From Cognitive Modeling to Social Simulation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, J. (2020). The role of robotics and AI in technologically mediated human evolution: a constructive proposal. AI and Society, 35, 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00877-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, N., & Sun, R. (2021). A mechanistic account of stress-induced performance degradation. Cognitive Computation, 13 (1), 207–227. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12559-020-09725-5Google Scholar
Zerubavel, E. (1997). Social Mindscapes: An Invitation to Cognitive Sociology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×