One theory-many formalizations: Testing different code implementations of the theory of planned behaviour in energy agent-based models

Hannah Muelder (Corresponding Author), Tatiana Filatova

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

14 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

As agent-based modelling gains popularity, the demand for transparency in underlying modelling assumptions grows. Behavioural rules guiding agents’ decisions, learning, interactions and possible changes in these should rely on solid theoretical and empirical grounds. This field has matured enough to reach the point at which we need to go beyond just reporting what social theory we base these rules upon. Many social science theories operate with various abstract constructions such as attitudes, perceptions, norms or intentions. These concepts are rather subjective and remain open to interpretation when operationalizing them in a formal model code. There is a growing concern that how modellers interpret qualitative social science theories in quantitative ABMs may differ from case to case. Yet, formal tests of these differences are scarce and a systematic approach to analyse any possible disagreements is lacking. Our paper addresses this gap by exploring the consequences of variations in formalizations of one social science theory on the simulation outcomes of agent-based models of the same class. We ran simulations to test the impact of four differences: in model architecture concerning specific equations and their sequence within one theory, in factors affecting agents’ decisions, in representation of these potentially differing factors, and finally in the underlying distribution of data used in a model. We illustrate emergent outcomes of these differences using an agent-based model developed to study regional impacts of households’ solar panel investment decisions. The Theory of Planned Behaviour was applied as one of the most common social science theories used to define behavioural rules of individual agents. Our findings demonstrate qualitative and quantitative differences in simulation outcomes, even when agents’ decision rules are based on the same theory and data. The paper outlines a number of critical methodological implications for future developments in agent-based modelling.

Original languageEnglish
Article number5
JournalJournal of artificial societies and social simulation
Volume21
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 31 Oct 2018

Fingerprint

social science theory
formalization
energy
Social sciences
Testing
simulation
job creation measure
Federal Government Report on Social Policy
transparency
popularity
geography
interpretation
Transparency
demand
interaction
learning

Keywords

  • Behaviour
  • Decision Making
  • Energy
  • Households
  • Micro-Foundations
  • Theory

Cite this

@article{b5ec581b03174f6db978e6af112a8e36,
title = "One theory-many formalizations: Testing different code implementations of the theory of planned behaviour in energy agent-based models",
abstract = "As agent-based modelling gains popularity, the demand for transparency in underlying modelling assumptions grows. Behavioural rules guiding agents’ decisions, learning, interactions and possible changes in these should rely on solid theoretical and empirical grounds. This field has matured enough to reach the point at which we need to go beyond just reporting what social theory we base these rules upon. Many social science theories operate with various abstract constructions such as attitudes, perceptions, norms or intentions. These concepts are rather subjective and remain open to interpretation when operationalizing them in a formal model code. There is a growing concern that how modellers interpret qualitative social science theories in quantitative ABMs may differ from case to case. Yet, formal tests of these differences are scarce and a systematic approach to analyse any possible disagreements is lacking. Our paper addresses this gap by exploring the consequences of variations in formalizations of one social science theory on the simulation outcomes of agent-based models of the same class. We ran simulations to test the impact of four differences: in model architecture concerning specific equations and their sequence within one theory, in factors affecting agents’ decisions, in representation of these potentially differing factors, and finally in the underlying distribution of data used in a model. We illustrate emergent outcomes of these differences using an agent-based model developed to study regional impacts of households’ solar panel investment decisions. The Theory of Planned Behaviour was applied as one of the most common social science theories used to define behavioural rules of individual agents. Our findings demonstrate qualitative and quantitative differences in simulation outcomes, even when agents’ decision rules are based on the same theory and data. The paper outlines a number of critical methodological implications for future developments in agent-based modelling.",
keywords = "Behaviour, Decision Making, Energy, Households, Micro-Foundations, Theory",
author = "Hannah Muelder and Tatiana Filatova",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "31",
doi = "10.18564/jasss.3855",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
journal = "Journal of artificial societies and social simulation",
issn = "1460-7425",
publisher = "University of Surrey",
number = "4",

}

One theory-many formalizations : Testing different code implementations of the theory of planned behaviour in energy agent-based models. / Muelder, Hannah (Corresponding Author); Filatova, Tatiana.

In: Journal of artificial societies and social simulation, Vol. 21, No. 4, 5, 31.10.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - One theory-many formalizations

T2 - Testing different code implementations of the theory of planned behaviour in energy agent-based models

AU - Muelder, Hannah

AU - Filatova, Tatiana

PY - 2018/10/31

Y1 - 2018/10/31

N2 - As agent-based modelling gains popularity, the demand for transparency in underlying modelling assumptions grows. Behavioural rules guiding agents’ decisions, learning, interactions and possible changes in these should rely on solid theoretical and empirical grounds. This field has matured enough to reach the point at which we need to go beyond just reporting what social theory we base these rules upon. Many social science theories operate with various abstract constructions such as attitudes, perceptions, norms or intentions. These concepts are rather subjective and remain open to interpretation when operationalizing them in a formal model code. There is a growing concern that how modellers interpret qualitative social science theories in quantitative ABMs may differ from case to case. Yet, formal tests of these differences are scarce and a systematic approach to analyse any possible disagreements is lacking. Our paper addresses this gap by exploring the consequences of variations in formalizations of one social science theory on the simulation outcomes of agent-based models of the same class. We ran simulations to test the impact of four differences: in model architecture concerning specific equations and their sequence within one theory, in factors affecting agents’ decisions, in representation of these potentially differing factors, and finally in the underlying distribution of data used in a model. We illustrate emergent outcomes of these differences using an agent-based model developed to study regional impacts of households’ solar panel investment decisions. The Theory of Planned Behaviour was applied as one of the most common social science theories used to define behavioural rules of individual agents. Our findings demonstrate qualitative and quantitative differences in simulation outcomes, even when agents’ decision rules are based on the same theory and data. The paper outlines a number of critical methodological implications for future developments in agent-based modelling.

AB - As agent-based modelling gains popularity, the demand for transparency in underlying modelling assumptions grows. Behavioural rules guiding agents’ decisions, learning, interactions and possible changes in these should rely on solid theoretical and empirical grounds. This field has matured enough to reach the point at which we need to go beyond just reporting what social theory we base these rules upon. Many social science theories operate with various abstract constructions such as attitudes, perceptions, norms or intentions. These concepts are rather subjective and remain open to interpretation when operationalizing them in a formal model code. There is a growing concern that how modellers interpret qualitative social science theories in quantitative ABMs may differ from case to case. Yet, formal tests of these differences are scarce and a systematic approach to analyse any possible disagreements is lacking. Our paper addresses this gap by exploring the consequences of variations in formalizations of one social science theory on the simulation outcomes of agent-based models of the same class. We ran simulations to test the impact of four differences: in model architecture concerning specific equations and their sequence within one theory, in factors affecting agents’ decisions, in representation of these potentially differing factors, and finally in the underlying distribution of data used in a model. We illustrate emergent outcomes of these differences using an agent-based model developed to study regional impacts of households’ solar panel investment decisions. The Theory of Planned Behaviour was applied as one of the most common social science theories used to define behavioural rules of individual agents. Our findings demonstrate qualitative and quantitative differences in simulation outcomes, even when agents’ decision rules are based on the same theory and data. The paper outlines a number of critical methodological implications for future developments in agent-based modelling.

KW - Behaviour

KW - Decision Making

KW - Energy

KW - Households

KW - Micro-Foundations

KW - Theory

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060224739&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.18564/jasss.3855

DO - 10.18564/jasss.3855

M3 - Article

VL - 21

JO - Journal of artificial societies and social simulation

JF - Journal of artificial societies and social simulation

SN - 1460-7425

IS - 4

M1 - 5

ER -