Advertisement

Premises of an Agent-Based Model Integrating Emotional Response to Risk in Decision-Making

  • Ioana Florina Popovici
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 10)

Abstract

Classical definition of risk implies attaching various probabilities to events considered risky. People affected by risk generate different perspectives about the phenomenon due to their individual emotional response. Measuring the real dimension of risk in the global economy implies taking into account all the different perspectives of the individuals who bear the consequences of risk. The most important fact is that the consequences of a risky event are born at different scales according to the agents’ own emotional response to risk. Intuitively thinking, even the probabilities used for estimating risk imply measuring it at different scales because of different emotional perception of risk by individual. All in all, dimension of risk varies according to the scales used for measurement. A global view on the real dimension of risk implies taking into account the infinite scales of risk born differently at various scales at the level of perception by agents.

Keywords

Decision-making agent-based modeling emotional behavior fractals 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bloomquist, K.: A comparison of agent-based models of income tax evasion. Internal Revenue Service, 8–15 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boloş, M., Popovici, I.: Ultramodernity in risk theory. In: Annals of the International Conference on Financial Trends in the Global Economy – Universitate Babeş Bolyai, Cluj Napoca – FSEGA, November 13-14, pp. 3–10 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bătrâncea, L.: Teoria jocurilor, comportament economic. In: Risoprint (ed.) Experimente, Cluj Napoca, pp. 163–194 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Camerer, C., Ho, T.-H., Chong, J.K.: Behavioral game theory: Thinking, building and Teaching. Research paper NSF grant, 24 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gellert, W.K., Hellwich, K.: Mică Enciclopedie matematică. In: Silvia, C. (ed.) Traducere de Postelnicu V, Tehnică, Bucureşti, pp. 234–250 (1980)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice science. New Series 211(4481), 453–458 (1981)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daniel, K., Tversky, A.: Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty stanford university, Department of Psychology, Stanford. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323 (1992)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lapidus, M., van Frankenhuijsen, M.: Fractal geometry. In: Complex Dimensions and Zeta Functions Geometry and Spectra of Fractal Strings, pp. 41–45. Springer Science, Business Media, LLC (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liebovitch, L.: Fractals and chaos simplified for life sciences. In: Center for Complex Systems, Florida Atlantic University, Oxford University Press, New York,Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mandelbrot, B.: The fractal geometry of nature, updated and augmented. In: International Business Machines, Thomas J. Watson Research Center Freeman and Company, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daniel, M., Morris Cox, E.: The new science of pleasure consumer behavior and the measurement of well-being. In: Frisch Lecture, Econometric Society World Congress, London, August 20, pp. 3–7. University of California, Berkeley (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rasmusen, E.: Games and information. In: An Introduction to Game Theory, 3rd edn., pp. 10–28. Basil Blackwell (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scarlat, E.: Agenţi şi modelarea bazată pe agenţi în economie. ASE Bucureşti, 15–20 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scarlat, E., Maries, I.: Simulating collective intelligence of the communities of practice using agent-based methods. In: Jędrzejowicz, P., Nguyen, N.T., Howlet, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES-AMSTA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6070, pp. 305–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scarlat, E., Maracine, V.: Agent-based modeling of forgetting and depreciating knowledge in a healthcare knowledge ecosystem. Economic Computation And Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research 41(3-4) (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scarlat, E., Boloş, M., Popovici, I.: Agent-based modeling in decision-making for project financing. Journal Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 5–10 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taleb, N.,, P.: Epistemiology and risk management. Risk and Regulation Magazine, 3–10 (August 25, 2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taleb, N., Mandelbrot, B.: Fat tails, asymmetric knowledge, and decision making, Nassim Nicholas Taleb”s Essay in honor of Benoit Mandelbrot”s 80th birthday. Wilmott Magazine, 2,16 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tulai, C., Popovici, I.: Modeling risk using elements of game theory and fractals. In: Annals of the International Conference - Universitatea din Craiova, Competitivitate şi Stabilitate în Economia bazată pe Cunoaştere, May 14-15, vol. 10, pp. 2–7 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ioana Florina Popovici
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BabeşBolyaiRomania

Personalised recommendations