Advertisement

Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 313–337 | Cite as

A cognitively based simulation of academic science

  • Isaac Naveh
  • Ron Sun
Article

Abstract

The models used in social simulation to date have mostly been very simplistic cognitively, with little attention paid to the details of individual cognition. This work proposes a more cognitively realistic approach to social simulation. It begins with a model created by Gilbert (1997) for capturing the growth of academic science. Gilbert’s model, which was equation-based, is replaced here by an agent-based model, with the cognitive architecture CLARION providing greater cognitive realism. Using this cognitive agent model, results comparable to previous simulations and to human data are obtained. It is found that while different cognitive settings may affect the aggregate number of scientific articles produced, they do not generally lead to different distributions of number of articles per author. The paper concludes with a discussion of the correspondence between the model and the constructivist view of academic science. It is argued that using more cognitively realistic models in simulations may lead to novel insights.

Keywords

Cognition Social simulation Cognitive architecture Science Culture 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahlert M (2003) An axiomatic approach to bounded rationality in negotiations. Paper read at the 2003 European Meeting of the Economic Science Association, September 18–21, ErfurtGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JR, Lebiere C (1998) The atomic components of thought. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Axelrod R (1987) The evolution of strategies in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. In: Davis L (ed). Genetic algorithms and simulated annealing, PitmanGoogle Scholar
  4. Axtell RL (2000) Why agents? On the varied motivations for agent computing in the social sciences. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Simulation: Applications, Models and Tools, Argonne National Laboratory, ILGoogle Scholar
  5. Axtell RL, Axelrod J, Cohen M (1996) Aligning simulation models: A case study and results. Comput Math Organiz Theory 1(2):123–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Best BJ, Lebiere C (2003) Teamwork, communication, and planning in ACT-R: Agents engaging in Urban combat in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI 2003 Workshop on Cognitive Modeling of Agents and Multi-Agent Interactions, Acapulco, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowers K, Regehr G, Balthazard C, Parker K (1990) Intuition in the context of discovery. Cognitive Psychology 17:72–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruner J, Goodnow J, Austin J (1956) A study of thinking. Wiley, NYGoogle Scholar
  9. Carley KM, Newell A (1994) The nature of the social agent. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 19(4):221–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castelfranchi C (2001) The theory of social functions: Challenges for computational social science and multi-agent learning. Cognitive Systems Research, Special Issue on the Multi-Disciplinary Studies of Multi-Agent Learn 2(1):5–38Google Scholar
  11. Cecconi F, Parisi D (1998) Individual versus social survival strategies. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1(2). Available online at http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/1/2/1.html
  12. Citro CF, Hanushek EA (eds) (1991) Improving information for social policy decisions: The use of microsimulation modeling. Vol I: Review and recommendations. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Cleeremans A (1997) Principles for implicit learning. In: Berry D (ed), How implicit is implicit learning? Oxford University Press, Oxford UKGoogle Scholar
  14. Conte R, Gilbert N (1995) Introduction. In: Gilbert GN, Conte R (eds), Artificial societies: The Computer Simulation of Social Life. UCL Press, London UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Edmonds B, Moss S (2001) The importance of representing cognitive processes in multi-agent models. In: Dorffner G, Bischof H, Hornik K (eds), Artificial neural networks—ICANN’2001, Springer-Verlag: Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 2130, pp 759–766Google Scholar
  16. Epstein JM, Axtell RL (1996) Growing artificial societies: Social science from the bottom up. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Gergen KJ (1985) The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. Amer Psychol 40(3):266–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gergen KJ, Gergen MM (1991) Towards reflexive methodologies. In: Steier F (ed), Research and reflexivity. Sage, Newsbury Park CAGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert N (1997) A simulation of the structure of academic science. Sociological Research Online 2(2). Available online at http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/2/3.html.
  20. Glaserfeld E (1987) The construction of knowledge. Intersystems Publications SeasideGoogle Scholar
  21. Grobman KH, Gilmore RO (2003) The gradual emergence of domain-general problem solving strategies during infancy. Manuscript under revision for Child DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  22. Hannum WH (1973) A study of select factors influencing the retention of rules. Ph.D. Thesis, Florida State University, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  23. Haraway D (1988) The science question in feminism as a site of discourse on the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3):575–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hutchins E (1995) How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science 19:265–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karmiloff-Smith A (1986) From meta-processes to conscious access: Evidence from children’s metalinguistic and repair data. Cognition 23:95–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klahr D, Langley P, Neches R (eds) (1987) Production system models of learning and development. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Kleinberg JM, Kumar R, Prabhakar R, Sridhar R, Tomkins AS (1999) The web as a graph: Measurements, models, and methods. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computing and Combinatorics July 26-28, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  28. Knorr-Cetina KD (1981) The manufacture of knowledge. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Knorr-Cetina KD (1983) Towards a constructivist interpretation of science. In: Knorr-Cetina KD, Mulkay M (eds), Science observed, Sage CAGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuhn T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  31. Kumar SR, Raghavan P, Rajagopalan S, Tomkins A (1999) Trawling the web for emerging cyber-communities. In: Proceedings of the 8th WWW ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  32. Lave J (1988) Cognition in practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UKGoogle Scholar
  33. Lotka AJ (1926) The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J Washington Acad Sci 16:317–323Google Scholar
  34. Mandler J (1992) How to build a baby. Psychol Rev 99(4):587–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mathews R, Buss R, Stanley W, Blanchard-Fields F, Cho J, Druhan B (1989) Role of implicit and explicit processes in learning from examples: A synergistic effect. J Exper Psychol: Learning, Memory and Cognition 15:1083–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moss S (1999) Relevance, realism and rigour: A third way for social and economic research. CPM Report No. 99-56. Center for Policy Analysis, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester UKGoogle Scholar
  37. Nosofsky R, Palmeri T, McKinley S (1994) Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychol Rev 101(1):53–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oliver JE (1991) The incomplete guide to the art of discovery. Columbia University Press, NY.Google Scholar
  39. Reber A (1989) Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. J Exper Psychol: General 118(3):219–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Resnick LB, Levine JM, Teasley SD (1991) Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Amer Psychol Assoc, Hyattsville MDGoogle Scholar
  41. Ridley DR, Gonzales E (1994) Zipf’s law extended to small samples of adult speech. Perceptual and Motor Skills 79:153–154Google Scholar
  42. Rosenbloom P, Laird J, Newell A (1993) The SOAR papers: Research on integrated intelligence. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Rumelhart D, McClelland J (eds) (1986) Parallel distributed processing I. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Schacter D (1990) Toward a cognitive neuropsychology of awareness: Implicit Knowledge and Anosagnosia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 12(1):155-178Google Scholar
  45. Schwandt TA (1994) Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In: N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Newbury Park CAGoogle Scholar
  46. Seger C (1994) Implicit learning. Psychol Bull 115(2):163–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shanks D (1993) Human instrumental learning: A critical review of data and theory. British J Psychol 84:319–354Google Scholar
  48. Shapin S (1982) History of science and its social reconstructions. History of Science 20:157–211Google Scholar
  49. Simon HA (1957) Models of man, social and rational. Wiley, NYGoogle Scholar
  50. Smolensky, P. (1988),“On the Proper Treatment of Connectionism,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(1), 1-74.Google Scholar
  51. Stanley W, Mathews R, Buss R, Kotler-Cope S (1989) Insight without awareness: On the interaction of verbalization, instruction and practice in a simulated process control task. Quarterly J Exp Psychol 41A(3):553–577Google Scholar
  52. Sun R (1994) Integrating rules and connectionism for robust commonsense reasoning. Wiley, NYGoogle Scholar
  53. Sun R (1997) Learning, action, and consciousness: A hybrid approach towards modeling consciousness. Neural Networks, Special Issue on Consciousness 10(7):1317–1331Google Scholar
  54. Sun R (2002) Duality of the mind. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah NJGoogle Scholar
  55. Sun R (2003) A tutorial on CLARION 5.0. Available online at http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/rsun/sun.tutorial.pdf
  56. Sun R, Merrill E, Peterson T (2001) From implicit skills to explicit knowledge: A bottom-up model of skill learning. Cognitive Sci 25(2):203–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sun R, Naveh I (2004) Simulating organizational decision-making using a cognitively realistic agent model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 7(3). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/7/3/5.html
  58. Sun R, Peterson T (1998) Autonomous learning of sequential tasks: Experiments and analyses. IEEE Trans Neural Networks 9(6):1217–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sun R, Slusarz P, Terry C (2005) The interaction of the explicit and the implicit in skill learning: A dual-process approach. Psychol Rev 112(1):159–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sun R, Zhang X (2004) Top-down versus bottom-up learning in cognitive skill acquisition. Cognitive Systems Research 5(1):63–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thagard P (1992) Conceptual revolutions. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  62. Watkins C (1989) Learning with delayed rewards. Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge University, Cambridge UKGoogle Scholar
  63. West RL, Lebiere C, Bothell DJ (2003) Cognitive architectures, game playing, and interactive agents. In: Ron Sun (ed), Proceedings of the IJCAI 2003 Workshop on Cognitive Modeling of Agents and Multi-Agent Interactions. Acapulco MexicoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isaac Naveh
    • 1
  • Ron Sun
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Cognitive ScienceRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations