Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
and depending on spatial and social influence of other actors, it is only a first
step. Group dynamic processes such as cooperation, negotiation cannot easily
be include in the model.
However, despite the above described limitations, the model generates plau-
sible spatial patterns of opinions, consistent with what could be expected from
the implemented scenarios. The model shows clearly the relation between level
of cooperativeness of the agents and the resulting spatial opinion patterns. A
society of agents with a higher willingness to cooperate leads to less differences,
both spatially as well as socially.
Although the patterns resulting from the simulation seem plausible and logi-
cally consistent a proper sensitivity analysis will be essential to get more insight
effects of the various parameters and input variables. Moreover, proper ground-
ing in existing theories of opinion and innovation diffusion, and spatial planning
is essential as well as a the development of methods and techniques to calibrate
and validate these models.
References
1. Rogers, E.: Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New York (2003)
2. Strang, D., Soule, S.A.: Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From
hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology 24, 265-290 (1998); Ar-
ticleType: research-article / Full publication date: 1998 / Copyright 1998 Annual
Reviews
3. Kiesling, E., Gunther, M., Stummer, C., Wakolbinger, L.: Agent-based simula-
tion of innovation diffusion: a review. Central European Journal of Operations
Research 20, 183-230 (2012)
4. Hagerstrand, T.: Innovation diffusion as a spatial process. [s.n.], Chicago (1967);
Monograph Wageningen UR Library
5. Berger, T.: Agent-based spatial models applied to agriculture: A simulation tool
for technology diffusion, resource use changes, and policy analysis. Agricultural
Economics 25(2-3), 245-260 (2001)
6. Parker, C., Manson, S., Janssen, M., Hoffmann, M., Deadman, P.: Multi-agent
system models for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: A review.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93, 316-340 (2003)
7. Matthews, R., Gilbert, N., Roach, A., Polhill, J., Gotts, N.: Agent-based land-
use models: a review of applications. Landscape Ecology 22, 1447-1459 (2007),
doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9135-1
8. Latane, B.: The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist 36, 343 (1981)
9. Deffuant, G., Neau, D., Amblard, F., Weisbuch, G.: Mixing beliefs among inter-
acting agents. Advances in Complex Systems 3, 87-98 (2000)
10. Weisbuch, G., Deffuant, G., Amblard, F., Nadal, J.P.: Interacting Agents and Con-
tinuous Opinions Dynamics. In: Cowan, R., Jonard, N. (eds.) Heterogenous Agents,
Interactions and Economic Performance. LNEMS, vol. 521, pp. 225-242. Springer,
Heidelberg (2003)
11. Lorenz, J.: Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence: A survey.
International Journal of Modern Physics C 18, 1819-1838 (2007)
12. Lorenz, J.: Consensus strikes back in the hegselmann-krause model of continuous
opinion dynamics under bounded confidence. Journal of Artificial Societies and
Social Simulation 9 (2006)
Search WWH ::




Custom Search