Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to main content

Agent-Based Model of Risk Assessment: A Distributed Cognition Approach

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Multiple Perspectives in Risk and Risk Management

Abstract

To better understand where and why errors happen in risk assessment, we propose a model of the risk assessment process as a distributed cognitive task for a group of agents. This model provides the foundation for an agent-based simulation that allows a systematic investigation of the risk assessment process in a controlled setting. Building on a perspective of sensemaking and cognition on risk analysis, we present a new approach to assess a whole class of group decision-making problems by building generalized constraint satisfaction networks as a starting point for a randomized agent-based simulation.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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 EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aven, T.: Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management. Risk Anal. 32(10), 1647–1656 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T.: Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 253(1), 1–13 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromiley, P., McShane, M., Nair, A., Rustambekov, E.: Enterprise risk management: review, critique, and research directions. Long Range Plan. 48(4), 265–276 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A.D., Colville, I., Pye, A.: Making sense of sensemaking in organization studies. Organ. Stud. 36(2), 265–277 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frigotto, M.L., Rossi, A.: Diversity and communication in teams: improving problem-solving or creating confusion? Group Decis. Negot. 21(6), 791–820 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frigotto, M.L., Rossi, A.: An explanatory coherence model of decision making in ill-structured problems. Mind Soc. 14(1), 35–55 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, N., Troitzsch, K.G.: Simulation for the Social Scientist. Open University Press, Berkshire (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S.O., Aven, T.: Is Risk Analysis Scientific? Risk Anal. 34(7), 1173–1183 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegselmann, R., Krause, U.: Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 5(3) (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E.: Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO—The International Organization for Standardization: ISO 31000:2009—Risk management—Principles and guidelines (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M.: The delphi method. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikes, A.: Risk management and calculative cultures. Manag. Account. Res. 20, 18–40 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, G., Thagard, P.: Newton, Descartes, and explanatory coherence. In: Duschl, R.A., Hamilton, R.J. (eds.) Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology and Educational Theory and Practice, pp. 69–115. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.G.: Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 24(2), 311–322 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taarup‐Esbensen, J.: Making sense of risk—a sociological perspective on the management of risk. Risk Anal. (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J.R., Van Every, E.J.: The emergent organization: communication as its site and surface. Routledge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P.: Explanatory coherence. Behav. Brain Sci. 12(3), 435–467 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P.: Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P.: Coherence in thought and action. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass (2000)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P.: Causal inference in legal decision making: explanatory coherence versus Bayesian networks. Appl. Artif. Intell. 18(3–4), 231–249 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P.: Cognitive architectures. In: Frankish, K., Ramsey, W.M. (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of cognitive science, pp. 50–70. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K.E.: Sensemaking in organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia, H., Wang, H., Xuan, Z.: Opinion dynamics: disciplinary origins, recent developments, and a view on future trends. Phys. Rev. 18(5), 35–39 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clemens Harten .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Harten, C. (2019). Agent-Based Model of Risk Assessment: A Distributed Cognition Approach. In: Linsley, P., Shrives, P., Wieczorek-Kosmala, M. (eds) Multiple Perspectives in Risk and Risk Management. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16045-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics