Towards Agent-Based Models of Cultural Dynamics: A Case of Stereotypes

  • Jens PfauEmail author
  • Yoshihisa Kashima
  • Liz Sonenberg
Part of the Studies in the Philosophy of Sociality book series (SIPS, volume 3)


We analyze from a semi-formal perspective the grounding model of cultural transmission, a social psychological theory that emphasizes the role of everyday joint activities in the transmission of cultural information. The model postulates that cultural transmission during joint activities depends on the context of the activity and the common ground that participants perceive. We build on a framework of intelligent agents that are able to engage in joint activities and integrate the process of communication as described by the grounding model of cultural transmission. We rely on stereotypes as a type of cultural information to illustrate how our model contributes to bridging the gap between micro- and macro-levels in research on cultural dynamics.


Joint Activity Common Ground Football Player Cultural Transmission Cultural Dynamic 
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.


  1. Axelrod, R.: The dissemination of culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(2), 203–226 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd, D., Richerson, P.J.: Culture and Evolutionary Process. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1985)Google Scholar
  3. Bratman, M.E.: Shared cooperative activity. The Philosophical Review 101, 327–341 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castelfranchi, C.: Modelling social action for AI agents. Artificial Intelligence 103(1–2), 157–182 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castellano, C., Fortunato, S., Loreto, V.: Statistical physics of social dynamics. Reviews of Modern Physics 81(2), 591–646 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Feldman, M.W.: Cultural Transmission and Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1981)Google Scholar
  7. Clark, A.E., Kashima, Y.: Stereotype consistent information helps people connect with others: Situated-functional account of stereotype communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93, 1028–1039 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, H.H.: Using language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, P., Levesque, H.: Teamwork. Nous, Special Issue on Cognitive Science and AI 25(4), 487–512 (1991)Google Scholar
  10. Dawkins, R.: The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1976)Google Scholar
  11. Dunin-Keplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Collective intentions. Fundamenta Informaticae 51(3), 271–295 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. Gilbert, D.T., Krull, D.S., Malone, P.S.: Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, 601–613 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilbert, D.T., Tafarodi, R.W., Malone, P.S.: You can’t not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 221–233 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilbert, N.: Agent-based models. Sage Publications, London, UK (2008)Google Scholar
  15. Goldstone, R.L., Janssen, M.A.: Computational models of collective behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(9), 424–430 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grice, H.P.: Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (eds.) Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. Academic Press, New York, NY (1975)Google Scholar
  17. Grosz, B.J., Kraus, S.: Collaborative plans for complex group action. Artificial Intelligence 86(2), 269–357 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kashima, Y.: Conceptions of culture and person for psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 31, 14–32 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kashima, Y., Klein, O., Clark, A.E.: Grounding: Sharing information in social interaction. In: Fiedler, K. (ed.) Social Communication, pp. 27–77. Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA (2008)Google Scholar
  20. Kashima, Y., Woolcock, J., Kashima, E.S.: Group impressions as dynamic configurations: The tensor product model of group impression formation and change. Psychological Review 107(4), 914–942 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levinson, S.C.: Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1983)Google Scholar
  22. Lyons, A., Kashima, Y.: How are stereotypes maintained through communication? The influence of stereotype sharedness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(6), 989–1005 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maxwell, D.T., Carley, K.M.: Principles for effectively representing heterogeneous populations in multi-agent simulations. In: Tolk, A., Jain, L.C. (eds.) Complex Systems in Knowledge-based Environments: Theory, Models and Applications, Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 168, pp. 199–228. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  24. Queller, S., Smith, E.R.: Subtyping versus bookkeeping in stereotype learning and change: Connectionist simulations and empirical findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82(3), 300–313 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rich, C., Sidner, C.L., Lesh, N.: Collagen: Applying collaborative discourse theory to human-computer interaction. AI magazine 22(4), 15–26 (2001)Google Scholar
  26. Searle, J.R.: Collective intentions and actions. In: Cohen, P.R., Morgan, J., Pollack, M.E. (eds.) Intentions in Communication,  chap. 19, pp. 401–415. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1990)Google Scholar
  27. Smith, E.R., DeCoster, J.: Knowledge acquisition, accessibility, and use in person perception and stereotyping: Simulation with a recurrent connectionist network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(1), 21–35 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith, E.R., Collins, E.C.: Contextualizing person perception: Distributed social cognition. Psychological Review 116(2), 343–364 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sperber, D., Wilson, D.: Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 2nd edn. (1995)Google Scholar
  30. Subramanian, R.A., Kumar, S., Cohen, P.R.: Integrating joint intention theory, belief reasoning, and communicative action for generating team-oriented dialogue. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-first National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pp. 1501–1506. AAAI Press (2006)Google Scholar
  31. Tambe, M.: Agent architectures for flexible, practical teamwork. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pp. 22–28 (1997)Google Scholar
  32. Traum, D.R.: A computational theory of grounding in natural language conversation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester (1994)Google Scholar
  33. Tuomela, R.: Joint intention, we-mode and i-mode. Midwest Studies In Philosophy 30(1), 35–58 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Overwalle, F., Heylighen, F.: Talking Nets: A multiagent connectionist approach to communication and trust between individuals. Psychological Review 113(3), 606–627 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Rooy, D.: Modeling multidirectional, dynamic social influences in social networks. In: Anderssen, R.S., Braddock, R.D., Newham, L.T.H. (eds.) MODSIM09 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (2009)Google Scholar
  36. Van Rooy, D., Van Overwalle, F., Vanhoomissen, T., Labiouse, C., French, R.: A recurrent connectionist model of group biases. Psychological Review 110(3), 536–563 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2nd edn. (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations