Abstract
We use the example of the introduction of the anti-smoking legislation to model the relationship between the cultural make-up, in terms of values, of societies and the acceptance of and compliance with norms. We present two agent-based simulations and discuss the challenge of modeling sanctions and their relation to values and culture.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For simplicity, we ignore for now the dimensions Long-Term Orientation (LTO) and Monumentalism (MON), which were added later.
The residual number of people who accept smoking in the cafe, has to do with the transition moment in which there were still smokers in the cafe.
Note that we restrict here to the mere order of the norm types, without ‘weights’ assigned to the norm types. This means that “Legal \(\succ\) Social \(\succ\) Private” represents both agents who exclusively consider legal norms, and agents who put the three norm types on the same level. Adding weights could refine this.
In terms of Schwartz’s value orientations, we could link a higher preference for social norms to a higher score for Embeddedness (vs. Autonomy), a higher preference for legal norms to a higher score for Hierarchy (vs. Egalitarianism) and a higher preference for private norms to a higher score on Mastery (vs. Harmony). However, when we framed Schwartz’s three value oppositions as ‘dimensions’ (which would be orthogonal), it is not evident how to see these in a linear order as we do here for the norm types.
Recall that in our simulation, we did not count actual smoking, but whether agents supported the permission to smoke in cafes
References
Aldewereld H (2007) Autonomy vs. conformity—an institutional perspective on norms and protocols. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht
Atkinson K, Banch-Capon T (2009) Co-ordination and co-operation in agent systems: social laws and argumentation. In: Argumentation in multi-agent systems, pp 122–140. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-00207-6_8
Bicchieri C (2006) The grammar of society. Cambridge University Press. http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521573726
Campenní M, Cecconi F, Andrighetto G, Conte R (2010) Norm and social compliance a computational study. Int J Agent Technol Syst (IJATS) 2(1):50–62
Conte R, Castelfranchi C, Dignum F (1998) Autonomous norm acceptance. In: Müller JP, Singh MP, Rao AS (eds) ATAL, LNCS, vol 1555. Springer, pp 99–112. http://dblp.uni-trier.de/rec/bibtex/conf/atal/ConteCD98
Dignum F (1999) Autonomous agents with norms. Artif Intell Law 7:69–79
Dignum F, Dignum V (2009) Emergence and enforcement of social behavior. In: Anderssen RS, Braddock RD, Newham LTH (eds) 18th World IMACS congress and MODSIM09 international congress on modelling and simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand and International Association for Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, pp 2942–2948. http://www.mssanz.org.au/modsim09/H4/dignum.pdf
Esteva M, Rodrguez-Aguilar JA, Sierra C, Garcia P, Arcos J (2001) On the formal specification of electronic institutions. In: Dignum F, Sierra C (eds) Agent mediated electronic commerce, LNCS, vol 1991. Springer, Berlin, pp 126–147
Gouveia VV, Ros M (2000) Hofstede and schwartz’s models for classifying individualism at the cultural level. Psicothema 12:25–33
Grossi D (2007) Designing invisible handcuffs-formal investigations in institutions and organizations for multi-agent systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht
Grossi D, Aldewereld H, Dignum F (2007) Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems II. chap. Ubi Lex, Ibi Poena: designing norm enforcement in E-Institutions. Springer, Berlin, pp 101–114
Hansson SO (2001) The structure of values and norms. Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s consequences, comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Hofstede G, Hofstede G (2003) Cultural dimensions. http://www.geert-hofstede.com/
Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M (2010) Cultures and organizations: software for the mind, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
International Tobacco Control Nederland (2009) ITC policy evaluation project- de effecten van de rookvrije horeca op rookgedrag. eerste nameting (2009). Available through http://www.stivoro.nl (in Dutch)
López y López F, Luck M, d’Inverno M (2002) Constraining autonomy through norms. In: AAMAS ’02. ACM, pp 674–681
Miceli M, Castelfranchi C (1989) A cognitive approach to values. J Theory Soc Behav 19:169–193
Nagelhout GE, Mons U, Allwright S, Guignard R, Beck F, Fong GT, de Vries H, Willemsen MC (2011) Prevalence and predictors of smoking in “smoke-free” bars. findings from the international tobacco control (ITC) Europe surveys. Soc Sci Med 72(10):1643–1651
Repast Organization for Architecture and Development (2003) http://repast.sourceforge.net
Schwartz SH (2006) A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comp Sociol 5(2–3):137–182. doi:10.1163/156913306778667357
Scott E (2002) Organizational moral values. Bus Ethics Q 12(1):33–55
van den Hoven M (2005) Design for values and values for design. Information Age+. J Aust Comput Soc 7(2):4–7
van der Weide T (2011) Arguing to motivate decisions. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University
Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by the European Complexity-Net (http://www.complexitynet.eu) through the SEMIRA project (http://www.semira.wur.nl) with funding from the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dechesne, F., Di Tosto, G., Dignum, V. et al. No smoking here: values, norms and culture in multi-agent systems. Artif Intell Law 21, 79–107 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-012-9128-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-012-9128-5