Association in multi-agent simulations of dynamic random social networks
Authors: 
Rob Stocker, Henry LarkinAuthors Info & Claims
Article No.: 20, Pages 1 - 7
Abstract
Social groups form where individuals who are attracted to each other - usually by a common interest --- interact and form clusters. These groups exist within structural networks that rely on the patterns of links between members through which communication and resource transfer occurs. Individual influence impacts on emergent characteristics of a group, for example, global opinion and collective behaviour. However, individuals join and leave groups, thus changing the system's dynamics. What impact do these structural changes have on the emergence of sub-groups? Here our interest is in the association of members around a particular ideology and real social network systems provide our bio-inspired simulation models. We address the effects of dynamic structural changes to randomly connected networks on global behaviour and the emergence of subgroups that associate with specific states. Results from multi-agent simulations demonstrate that social cohesion and collection of nodes around particular states are dependent on group dynamics and can have an impact on social management that effects social order and stability.
References
[1]
Albert, R., and Barabási, A-L. 2001. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. arXiv:cond-mat/0106096 1: 1--54.
[2]
Albert, R., Jeong, H., and Barabási, A-L. 2000. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature 406: 378--382.
[3]
Aunger, Robert. 2002. The electric meme: A new theory of how we think. New York: The Free Press (Simon & Schuster Inc.).
[4]
Bak, P., Tang, C., and Wiesenfeld, K. 1988. Self-organized criticality. Physical Review A 38(1): 364--374.
[5]
Becker, M. H. 1970. Sociometric location innovativeness: Reformulation and extension of the diffusion model. American Sociological Review. 35 (2): 267--282.
[6]
Blackmore, S. 1999. The meme machine. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
[7]
Bollobás, B. 1985. Random Graphs. New York: Academic Press.
[8]
Brodie, Richard. 1996. Virus of the mind: The new science of the meme. Seattle: Integral Press.
[9]
Burt, R. S. 1982 Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology. 88: 1287--1335.
[10]
Cornforth, D. Green, D. G., Newth, D., and Kirley, M. 2002. Do artificial ants march in step? Ordered asynchronous processes and modularity in biological systems. In R K Standish et al. (Eds) Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Life, Sydney. 28--32.
[11]
Doreian, P., and Stokman, F. N. 1997. The dynamics and evolution of social networks. New York: Gordon and Breach.
[12]
Dunbar, R. I. M., Duncan, N. D. C., and Nettle, D. 1995. Size and structure of freely forming conversational groups. Human Nature. 6(1): 67--78.
[13]
Dunbar, R. I. M., and Duncan, N. D. C. 1997. Human conversational behaviour. Human Nature. 8(3): 241--246.
[14]
Erdös, P., and Rényi, A. 1960. On the evolution of random graphs. Mat. Kutato. Int. Kozl. 5: 17--61.
[15]
Gilbert, N., and Troitzsch, K. G. 1999. Simulation for the social scientist. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
[16]
Goldspink, C. 2002. Methodological implications of complex systems approaches to sociality simulation as a foundation for knowledge. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulations. 5(1): 3. <http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/5/1/3.html>
[17]
Granovetter, Mark. 1978. Threshold models of collective behaviour. American Journal of Sociology. 83(6): 1420--1443.
[18]
Green, D. G. 1996. Towards a mathematics of complexity. In R Stocker et al. (Eds) Complex Systems 96: From local interactions to global phenomena. Amsterdam: IOS Press. 98--105.
[19]
Green, D. G. 2002. Hierarchy, complexity and agent models. In Our Fragile World. Paris: UNESCO.
[20]
Hanneman, R. A. 1995. Simulation modelling and theoretical analysis in sociology. Sociological Perspectives. 38(4): 457--462.
[21]
Harvey, I., and Bossomaier, T. R. J. 1997. Time out of joint: Attractors in asynchronous boolean networks. In P Husbands and I Harvey (Eds) Proc. Fourth European Conference on Artificial Life. 67--75.
[22]
Holland, J. 1995. Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Reading MA: Perseus Books.
[23]
Holyst, Janusz, A., Kacperski, Krysztof and Schweitzer, Frank. 2000. Phase transitions in social impact models of opinion formation. Elsevier Preprint arXiv:condmat/0004026 1: 1--21.
[24]
Kauffman, S. A. 1992. The Origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[25]
Klüver, J., and Schmidt, J. 1999. Topology, metric and dynamics of social systems. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. 2(3): 7. <http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/2/3/7.html>
[26]
Liebrand, Wim, B. G. 1998. Computer modelling and the analysis of complex human behaviour: Retrospect and prospect. In W Liebrand, et al. (Eds) Computer Modelling of Social Processes: New Technologies for Social Research. London: Sage Publications. 1--19.
[27]
Lynch, Aaron. 1996. Thought contagion: How belief spreads through society. New York: Basic Books (Perseus Books Group).
[28]
Marsden, P. 2000. Mental epidemics. New Scientist. 2237: 46--47.
[29]
Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., and Latané, B. 1990. From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review. 97(3), 362--376.
[30]
Rogers, E. M., and Beal, G. M. 1958. The importance of personal influence in the adoption of technological changes. Social Forces. 36 (4): 329--335.
[31]
Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
[32]
Schecter, Bruce. 2002. The new physics of peer pressure. New Scientist August: 42--45.
[33]
Scott, J. 1991. Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage Publications.
[34]
Stocker, Rob., Green, David G., and Newth, David. 2001. Consensus and cohesion in simulated social networks. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulations. 4(4): 5. <http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/4/4/5.html>.
[35]
Stocker, Rob., Cornforth, David., and Bossomaier, T. R. J. 2002. Network structures and agreement in social network simulations. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulations. 5(4): 3. <http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/5/4/3.html>.
[36]
Stocker, Rob., Cornforth, David., and Green, David G. 2003. A simulation of the impact of media on social cohesion. Journal of Advances in Complex Systems. 6(3): 349--359.
[37]
Stocker, Rob. 2008. Different states of mind, choice, structure and aggregation in simulated social networks. Connections: Journal of International Network of Social Network Analysts (INSNA). (accepted)
[38]
Valente, T. W., Unger, Jennifer B., and Johnson. C. Anderson. 2005. Do popular students smoke? The association between popularity and smoking among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health 37 (4): 323--329.
[39]
Wassermann, S., and Faust, K. 1995. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
[40]
Watts, D. J., Dodds, P. S., and Newman, M. E. J. 2002. Identity and search in social networks. Science 296: 1302--1305.
[41]
Wellman, B. 1988. Structural analysis: From method and metaphor to theory and substance. In B. Wellman and S. D. Berkowitz (Eds) Social Structures: A Network Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 19--61.
- Association in multi-agent simulations of dynamic random social networks
Recommendations
Agent-based social networking for mobile user
Nowadays, social network services play an important role in users' everyday lives. This is especially emphasised in lives of users that belong to Generation Y. Young people often communicate and share various personal information with their family, ...
Group formation in large social networks: membership, growth, and evolution
KDD '06: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data miningThe processes by which communities come together, attract new members, and develop over time is a central research issue in the social sciences - political movements, professional organizations, and religious denominations all provide fundamental ...
Building social capital with Facebook: Type of network, availability of other media, and social self-efficacy matter#
Highlights- Type of friends affects building social capital via Facebook and traditional media.
AbstractFindings about Facebook's effect on relationships are mixed, possibly due to lack of models that acknowledge differences across users, types of their friends, and use of competing media. To address this, we proposed and tested how ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Sponsors
- ICST
Publisher
ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering)
Brussels, Belgium
Publication History
Published: 25 November 2008
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 96Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)21
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8
Reflects downloads up to 18 Feb 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in