Abstract
In this paper we demonstrate how a qualitative framework for decision making can be used to model scenarios from experimental economic studies and we show how our approach explains the results that have been reported from such studies. Our framework is an argumentation-based one in which the social values promoted or demoted by alternative action options are explicitly represented. Our particular representation is used to model the Dictator Game and the Ultimatum Game, which are simple interactions in which it must be decided how a sum of money will be divided between the players in the games. Studies have been conducted into how humans act in such games and the results are not explained by a decision-model that assumes that the participants are purely self-interested utility-maximisers. Some studies further suggest that differences in choices made in different cultures may reflect their day to day behaviour, which can in turn be related to the values of the subjects, and how they order their values. In this paper we show how these interactions can be modelled in agent systems in a framework that makes explicit the reasons for the agents’ choices based upon their social values. Our framework is intended for use in situations where agents are required to be adaptable, for example, where agents may prefer different outcome states in transactions involving different types of counter-parties.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aart, C., Marcke, K., Pels, R., & Smulders, J. (2002). International insurance traffic with software agents. In: F. Harmelen (ed.) Proceedings of the fifteenth European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI 2002) (pp. 623–627). Lyon, France.
Anand P. (1993) Foundations of rational choice under risk. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK
Atkinson K., Bench-Capon T. J. M. (2007) Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 855–874
Atkinson K., Bench-Capon T. J. M., McBurney P. (2006) Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152(2): 157–206
Bardsley N. (2008) Dictator game giving: Altruism or artefact. Experimental Economics 11(2): 122–133
Bench-Capon T. J. M. (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 429–448
Bolton G. E., Katok E., Zwick R. (1998) Dictator game giving: Rules of fairness versus acts of kindness. International Journal of Game Theory 27: 269–299
Dung P. M. (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321–357
Forsythe R., Horowitz J. L., Savin N. E., Sefton M. (1994) Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior 6(3): 347–369
Fox, J., & Parsons, S. (1998). Arguing about beliefs and actions. In A. Hunter & S. Parsons (Eds.), Applications of uncertainty formalisms. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 1455, pp. 266–302). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Friedman M. (1953) The methodology of positive economics. In: Friedman M. (Ed.) Essays in positive economics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA, pp 3–43
Henrich J., Boyd R., Bowles S., Camerer C., Fehr E., Gintis H., McElreath R. (2001) In search of homo economicus. Behavioral experiments in fifteen small-scale societies. American Economic Review 91(2): 73–78
Hofstede G. (1991) Cultures and organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA
Hogg L. M. J., Jennings N. R. (2001) Socially intelligent reasoning for autonomous agents. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics—Part A 31(5): 381–399
Inglehart R. (2000) Culture and democracy. In: Harrison L. E., Huntington S. P. (eds) Culture matters: How values shape human progress. Basic Books, New York, USA
Jonker, G. M., Dignum, F. P. M., & Meyer, J. J. (2007). Achieving cooperation among selfish agents in the air traffic management domain using signed money. In Proceedings of the sixth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS 2007) (pp. 1258–1260). New York: ACM Press.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A. (eds) (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Karunatillake, N. C., Jennings, N. R., Rahwan, I., & Ramchurn, S. D. (2006). Managing social influences through argumentation-based negotiation. In Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS 2006) (pp. 426–428). New York: ACM Press.
Lindley D. V. (1985) Making decisions (2nd ed.). Wiley, London, UK
Mihailescu, P., Shepherdson, J., Marrow, P., Lee, L., & Lee, H.(2004). MAS platforms as an enabler of enterprise mobilisation: The state of the art. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on systems, man & cybernetics (SMC 2004) (Vol. 2, pp. 1889–1894). The Hague, The Netherlands: IEEE.
Mill, J. S.(1874) On the definition of political economy, and on the method of investigation proper to it. In London and Westminster Review, October 1836. Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer.
Modgil S. (2009) Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 173(9–10): 901–934
Nowak M. A., Page K. M., Sigmund K. (2000) Fairness versus reason in the Ultimatum Game. Science 289: 1773–1775
Oosterbeek H., Sloof R., van de Kuilen G. (2004) Differences in Ultimatum Game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics 7(2): 171–188
Parreira Duarte, R. L.(2009). Modelling arguments in the Dictator Game. Technical Reports. ULCS-10-006, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool.
Parsons S. (2001) Qualitative methods for reasoning under uncertainty. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA
Parsons, S., Gmytrasiewicz, P., Wooldridge, M. (eds) (2002) Game theory and decision theory in agent-based systems. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA, USA
Ramchurn S. D., Sierra C., Godo L., Jennings N. R. (2007) Negotiating using rewards. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 805–837
Roberts J. H., Lattin J. M. (1991) Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition. Journal of Marketing Research 28: 429–440
Savage L. J. (1950) The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New York, NY
Searle J. R. (2001) Rationality in action. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA
Shackle, G. L. S. (1961). Decision, order and time in human affairs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (2nd ed., 1969).
Shafer G. (1986) Savage revisited. Statistical Science 1(4): 463–485
Shugan S. M. (1980) The cost of thinking. Journal of Consumer Research 7: 99–111
Simon, H. A. (1957). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. In Models of bounded rationality (Vol. 2, pp. 259–268). Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Walton D. N. (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA
Wooldridge M., van der Hoek W. (2005) On obligations and normative ability: Towards a logical analysis of the social contract. Journal of Applied Logic 3: 396–420
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bench-Capon, T., Atkinson, K. & McBurney, P. Using argumentation to model agent decision making in economic experiments. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 25, 183–208 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-011-9173-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-011-9173-6