IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v18y2013i3p31-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Sociology Should Use Agent Based Modelling

Author

Listed:
  • Edmund Chattoe-Brown

Abstract

Although Agent Based Models (hereafter ABM) are now regularly reported in sociology journals, explaining the approach, describing models and reporting results leaves little opportunity to examine wider implications of ABM for sociological practice. This article uses an established ABM (the Schelling model) for this. The first part argues that ABM integrates qualitative and quantitative data distinctively, provides novel tools for understanding social causes and offers a significantly different perspective on theory building. The second part shows how the emerging ABM methodology is compatible with existing sociological practice while undermining several criticisms of ABM perceived to limit its sociological relevance.

Suggested Citation

  • Edmund Chattoe-Brown, 2013. "Why Sociology Should Use Agent Based Modelling," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 18(3), pages 31-41, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:18:y:2013:i:3:p:31-41
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.3055
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.3055
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.3055?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. 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.
    2. Hessel Oosterbeek & Randolph Sloof & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2004. "Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 171-188, June.
    3. J. Gareth Polhill & Lee-Ann Sutherland & Nicholas M. Gotts, 2010. "Using Qualitative Evidence to Enhance an Agent-Based Modelling System for Studying Land Use Change," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 13(2), pages 1-10.
    4. Molana, H, 1993. "The Role of Income in the Consumption Function: A Review of On-Going Developments," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 40(3), pages 335-352, August.
    5. Oliver Will, 2009. "Resolving a Replication That Failed: News on the Macy & Sato Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 12(4), pages 1-11.
    6. Edmund Chattoe & Nigel Gilbert, 2001. "Understanding Consumption: What Interviews with Retired Households Can Reveal about Budgetary Decisions," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 6(3), pages 1-12, November.
    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. Ngo-Hoang, Dai-Long, 2019. "A research paper of Hossein Sabzian (2019), Theories and Practice of Agent based Modeling: Some practical Implications for Economic Planners, ArXiv, 54p," AgriXiv xutyz, Center for Open Science.
    2. Alireza Mansouri & Fattaneh Taghiyareh, 2020. "Phase Transition in the Social Impact Model of Opinion Formation in Scale-Free Networks: The Social Power Effect," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 23(2), pages 1-3.
    3. Hossein Sabzian & Mohammad Ali Shafia & Ali Maleki & Seyeed Mostapha Seyeed Hashemi & Ali Baghaei & Hossein Gharib, 2019. "Theories and Practice of Agent based Modeling: Some practical Implications for Economic Planners," Papers 1901.08932, arXiv.org.
    4. Kenneth Hemmerechts & Nohemi Jocabeth Echeverria Vicente & Dimokritos Kavadias, 2017. "The Order of Human Interdependencies: Simulating Elias’ One-level Multi-person Models," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 22(4), pages 105-131, December.
    5. Chappin, Emile J.L. & Schleich, Joachim & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Faure, Corinne & Bouwmans, Ivo, 2022. "Linking of a multi-country discrete choice experiment and an agent-based model to simulate the diffusion of smart thermostats," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(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. Liqi Zhu & Gerd Gigerenzer & Gang Huangfu, 2013. "Psychological Traces of China's Socio-Economic Reforms in the Ultimatum and Dictator Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    2. Fernando P Santos & Jorge M Pacheco & Ana Paiva & Francisco C Santos, 2017. "Structural power and the evolution of collective fairness in social networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    4. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    5. 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.
    6. Chesney, Thomas & Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Hoffmann, Robert, 2009. "Virtual world experimentation: An exploratory study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 618-635, October.
    7. Adrian de Groot Ruiz & Theo Offerman & Sander Onderstal, 2011. "An Experimental Study of Credible Deviations and ACDC," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-153/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    8. Fabian Dvorak & Regina Stumpf & Sebastian Fehrler & Urs Fischbacher, 2024. "Generative AI Triggers Welfare-Reducing Decisions in Humans," Papers 2401.12773, arXiv.org.
    9. Thorsten Chmura & Christoph Engel & Markus Englerth, 2013. "Selfishness As a Potential Cause of Crime. A Prison Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    10. Shuwen Li & Xiangdong Qin & Daniel Houser, 2018. "Revisiting gender differences in ultimatum bargaining: experimental evidence from the US and China," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(2), pages 180-190, December.
    11. Declerck, Carolyn H. & Kiyonari, Toko & Boone, Christophe, 2009. "Why do responders reject unequal offers in the Ultimatum Game? An experimental study on the role of perceiving interdependence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 335-343, June.
    12. Pietro Battiston & Simona Gamba, 2020. "When the two ends meet: an experiment on cooperation and social capital," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 37(3), pages 911-940, October.
    13. Jaime Iranzo & Luis M Floría & Yamir Moreno & Angel Sánchez, 2012. "Empathy Emerges Spontaneously in the Ultimatum Game: Small Groups and Networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-8, September.
    14. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    15. Guillen, Pablo & Hing, Alexander, 2014. "Lying through their teeth: Third party advice and truth telling in a strategy proof mechanism," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 178-185.
    16. Olivier Armantier, 2006. "Do Wealth Differences Affect Fairness Considerations?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 47(2), pages 391-429, May.
    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. Salvatore Nunnari & Massimiliano Pozzi, 2022. "Meta-Analysis of Inequality Aversion Estimates," CESifo Working Paper Series 9851, CESifo.
    19. Paul J Zak & Angela A Stanton & Sheila Ahmadi, 2007. "Oxytocin Increases Generosity in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(11), pages 1-5, November.
    20. Ferdinand Vieider & Thorsten Chmura & Tyler Fisher & Takao Kusakawa & Peter Martinsson & Frauke Mattison Thompson & Adewara Sunday, 2015. "Within- versus between-country differences in risk attitudes: implications for cultural comparisons," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 78(2), pages 209-218, February.

    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:18:y:2013:i:3:p:31-41. 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.