Socionics pp 218-241 | Cite as

From Conditional Commitments to Generalized Media: On Means of Coordination Between Self-Governed Entities

  • Ingo Schulz-Schaeffer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3413)


In the absence of pre-established coordination structures, what can a self-governed entity—i.e. an entity that chooses on its own between its possible actions and cannot be controlled externally—do to evoke another self-governed entity’s cooperation? In this paper, the motivating conditional self-commitment is conceived to be the basic mechanism to solve coordination problems of this kind. It will be argued that such commitments have an inherent tendency to become more and more generalized and institutionalised. The sociological concept of generalized symbolic media is reinterpreted as a concept that focuses on this point. The conceptual framework resulting from the considerations is applicable to coordination problems between human actors as well as to coordination problems between artificial agents in open multi-agent systems. Thus, it may help to transfer solutions from one realm to the other.


Generalize Medium Symbolic Representation Coordination Mechanism Software Agent Coordination Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Van de Velde, W., Perram, J.P.: Preface. In: Perram, J., Van de Velde, W. (eds.) MAAMAW 1996. LNCS, vol. 1038, pp. V–X Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jennings, N.R.: Coordination Techniques for Distributed Artificial Intelligence. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pp. 187–210. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parsons, T., Shils, E.: Some Fundamental Categories of the Theory of Action. A General Statement. In: Parsons, T., Shils, E. (eds.) Toward a General Theory of Action, pp. 3–29. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1951)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Esser, H.: Soziologie. Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 3: Soziales Handeln. Campus, Frankfurt/Main (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shoham, Y.: Agent-oriented Programming. Artificial Intelligence 60, 51–92 (1993)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haddadi, A., Sundermeyer, K.: Belief-Desire-Intention Agent Architectures. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pp. 169–210. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mead, G.H.: Mind, Self, and Society. From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, vol. 14. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago (1967)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Durkheim, E.: The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press, New York (1982)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luhmann, N.: Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main (1984)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Habermas, J.: Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Band 1 und 2. Vierte, durchgesehene Auflage edn. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main (1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kant, I.: Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Meiner, Hamburg (1956)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krohn, W.: Das Risiko des (Nicht-)Wissens. Zum Funktionswandel der Wissenschaft in der Wissensgesellschaft. In: Böschen, S., Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (eds.) Wissenschaft in derWissensgesellschaft, pp. 97–118. Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parsons, T.: On the Concept of Influence. Public Opinion Quarterly 27, 37–62 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parsons, T.: Social Structure and the Symbolic Media of Interchance. In: Blau, P.M. (ed.) Approaches to the Study of Social Structure, pp. 94–120. Free Press, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luhmann, N.: Einführende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie symbolisch generalisierter Kommunikationsmedien. In: Luhmann, N. (ed.) Soziologische Aufklärung. Band 2: Aufsätze zur Theorie der Gesellschaft, pp. 170–192. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen (1975)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luhmann, N.: Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coleman, J.S.: Foundations of Social Theory. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Esser, H.: Soziologie. Allgemeine Grundlagen. Campus, Frankfurt/Main (1993)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marx, K.: Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. 4., durchgesehene Auflage, Hamburg 1890 edn. Dietz Verlag, Berlin (1971(1890))Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parsons, T.: On the Concept of Political Power. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107, 232–262 (1963)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schimank, U.: Theorien gesellschaftlicher Differenzierung. 2. Aufl. edn. Leske + Budrich, Opladen (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Merton, R.K.: Priorities in Scientific Discovery. American Sociological Review 22, 635–659 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luhmann, N.: Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main (1990)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Merton, R.K.: The matthew effect in science. Science 159, 56–63 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zuckerman, H., Merton, R.K.: Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalization, Structure and Functions of the Referee System. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy 9, 66–100 (1971)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Giddens, A.: The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1990)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Menger, C.: Ueber das exacte (das atomistische) Verständnis des Ursprungs jener Socialgebilde, welche das unreflectirte Ergebnis gesellschaftlicher Entwickelung sind. In: Menger, C. (ed.) Untersuchungen über die Methode der Sozialwissenschaften und der politischen Ö konomie insbesondere. GesammelteWerke, hrsg. mit einer Einleitung und einem Schriftenverzeichnis von F. A. Hayek, vol. Bd., 2. Aulf edn., pp. 171–183. Mohr, Tübingen (1969(1883))Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Conte, R.: Emergent (Info)Institutions. Cognitive Systems Research 2, 97–110 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Davis, R., Smith, R.: Negotiation as a Metaphor for Distributed Problem Solving. Artificial Intelligence 20, 63–109 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schulz-Schaeffer, I.: Vergesellschaftung und Vergemeinschaftung künstlicher Agenten. Sozialvorstellungen in der Multiagenten-Forschung. Research Reports RR 3, Technikbewertung und Technikgestaltung, TU Hamburg-Harburg, Hamburg (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wellman, M.P.: A General-Equilibrium Approach to Distributed Transportation Planning. In: Szolovits, P. (ed.) AAAI 1992. Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Jose, California, July 1992, pp. 282–289. AAAI Press,The MIT Press, Menlo Park (1992)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lesser, V.R., Corkhill, D.D.: The distributed vehicle monitoring testbed: A tool for investigating distributed problem solving networks. The AI Magazine 4, 15–33 (1983)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Durfee, E.H., Lesser, V.R., Corkhill, D.D.: Trends in Cooperative Distributed Problem Solving. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering I, 63–83 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Martial, F.v.: Coordinating Plans of Autonomous Agents. Springer, Berlin (1992)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Davis, R.: Report on the Workshop on Distributed AI. Sigart Newsletter 73, 42–52 (1980)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: On the Synthesis of Useful Social Laws for Artificial Agents Societies (Preliminary Report). In: Szolovits, P. (ed.) AAAI 1992. Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Jose, California, July 1992, pp. 276–281. AAAI Press,The MIT Press, Menlo Park (1992)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Social Power. A Point Missed in Multi-Agent, DAI and HCI. In: Müller, J.P. (ed.) Dezentralized AI. Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, pp. 49–63. Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C.: Mind is Not Enough: The Cognitive Bases of Social Interaction. In: Doran, J. (ed.) Simulating Societies. The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena, pp. 267–286. UCL-Press, London (1994)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schulz-Schaeffer, I.: Innovation durch Konzeptübertragung. Der Rückgriff auf Bekanntes bei der Erzeugung, technischer Neuerungen am Beispiel der Multiagentensystem-Forschung. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 31, 232–251 (2002)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hewitt, C.E.: Offices are Open Systems. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 4, 271–287 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hewitt, C.E.: Open information systems semantics for distributed artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 47, 79–106 (1991)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Finin, T., Weber, J., Wiederhold, G., Genesereth, M., McKay, D., Fritzson, R., Shapiro, S., Pelavin, R., McGuire, J.: Specification of KQML Agent-Communication Language plus Example Agent Policies and Architectures. (Draft) Working Paper of the DARPA Knowledge Sharing Initiative External Interfaces Working Group (1993)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Labrou, Y., Finin, T.: A Proposal for a new KQML Specification. Technical Report TR CS- 97-03, Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Department, University of Maryland, Maryland, Baltimore County, MD 21250 (1997)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bond, A.H.: A Computational Model for Organization of Cooperating Intelligent Agents. In: Lochovsky, F.H., Allen, R.B. (eds.) Proceedings of the Conference on Office Information Systems, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 21–30 (1990)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention Is Choice with Commitment. Artifical Intelligence 42, 213–261 (1990)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jennings, N.R.: Coordination: Commitment and Conventions: The Foundation of Coordination in Multi-Agent Systems. Knowledge Engineering Review 8, 223–250 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Commitments: From Individual Intentions to Groups and Organizations. In: Lesser, V. (ed.) ICMAS 1995. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, June 12-14, pp. 41–48. AAAI Press,The MIT Press, Menlo Park (1995)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Castelfranchi, C., Conte, R.: Distributed Artificial Intelligence and Social Science: Critical Issues. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pp. 527–542. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Michel, A., Senteni, A.: Emotions as Commitments Operators: A Foundation for Control Structure in Multi-Agent Systems. In: Perram, J., Van de Velde, W. (eds.) MAAMAW 1996. LNCS, vol. 1038, pp. 13–25. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rosenschein, J.R., Genesereth, M.R.: Deals Among Rational Agents. In: Gasser, L. (ed.) Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pp. 227–234. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo (1988)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Marsh, S.: Trust in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. In: Castelfranchi, C., Werner, E. (eds.) MAAMAW 1992. LNCS, vol. 830, pp. 94–114. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Principles of Trust for MAS: Cognitive Anatomy, Social Importance, and Quantification. In: ICMAS 1998. Proceedings of the International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 72–79. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Conte, R., Paolucci, M.: Reputation in Artificial Societies. Social Beliefs for Social Order. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Castelfranchi, C., Conte, R., Paolucci, M.: Normative Reputation and the Costs of Compliance. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 1 (1998),
  55. 55.
    online, S.: eBay-Sicherheitsloch: Wie ein Träumer das Bewertungssystem aushebelte. Spiegel Online (2003),,1518,236673,00.html
  56. 56.
    Schulz-Schaeffer, I.: Enrolling Software Agents in Human Organizations. The Exploration of Hybrid Organizations within the Socionics Research Program. In: Saam, N.J., Schmidt, B. (eds.) Cooperative Agents. Applications in the Social Sciences, pp. 149–163. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingo Schulz-Schaeffer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für SoziologieTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations