Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Behavioral
Modeling
and
SiMulation
From IndIvIduals To socIeTIes
Committee on Organizational Modeling: From Individuals to Societies
Greg L. Zacharias, Jean MacMillan, and Susan B. Van Hemel, Editors
Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Govern-
ing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the
councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineer-
ing, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for
the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropri-
ate balance.
The study was supported by Award No. FA8650-04-2-6542 between the National
Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of the Air Force. Any opinions, find-
ings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of
the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies
that provided support for this project.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Behavioral modeling and simulation : from individuals to societies / Committee on
Organizational Modeling:From Individuals to Societies ; Greg L. Zacharias, Jean
MacMillan, and Susan B. Van Hemel, editors ; Board on Behavior, Cognitive, and
Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-0-309-11862-0 (pbk.) — ISBN 978-0-309-11863-7 (pdf) 1. Psychology,
Military. 2. Sociology, Military. 3. Human behavior—Simulation methods. 4.
Organizational behavior—Simulation methods. I. Zacharias, Greg. II. MacMillan,
Jean. III. Van Hemel, Susan B. IV. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee
on Organizational Modeling: From Individuals to Societies.
U22.3.B44 2008
355.001′9—dc22
2008019733
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or
(202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2008). Behavioral Modeling and
Simulation: From Individuals to Societies. Committee on Organizational Modeling:
From Individuals to Societies, Greg L. Zacharias, Jean MacMillan, and Susan Van
Hemel, editors. Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division
of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
OCR for page R3
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society
of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated
to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general wel-
fare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863,
the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on
scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National
Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter
of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding
engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members,
sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the
federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer-
ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,
and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is presi-
dent of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of
Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in
the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Insti-
tute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its
congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own
initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V.
Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci-
ences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the
Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government.
Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the
Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy
of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to
the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The
Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.
Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively,
of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
COMMITTEE ON ORgANIzATIONAL MODELINg:
FROM INDIvIDuALS TO SOCIETIES
GREG L. ZACHARIAS (Cochair), Charles River Analytics, Inc.,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
JEAN MacMILLAN (Cochair), Aptima Inc., Woburn, Massachusetts
HOLLY ARROW, Department of Psychology, University of Oregon,
Eugene
STEVEN P. BORGATTI, Gatton School of Business and Economics,
University of Kentucky, Lexington
RICHARD M. BURTON, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University
KATHLEEN M. CARLEY, Department of Social and Decision Sciences,
Carnegie Mellon University
CATHERINE DIBBLE, Department of Geography, University of Maryland,
College Park
EVA HUDLICKA, Psychometrix Associates, Blacksburg, Virginia
JEFFREY C. JOHNSON, Department of Sociology, East Carolina
University
SCOTT E. PAGE, Department of Political Science, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor
ANDREW P. SAGE, Department of Systems Engineering and Operations
Research, George Mason University
LEIGH S. TESFATSION, Department of Economics, Iowa State University
MICHAEL J. ZYDA, Department of Computer Science, University of
Southern California
SUSAN B. VAN HEMEL, Study Director
KRISTEN A. BUTLER, Research Assistant
JESSICA G. MARTINEZ, Senior Program Assistant (August 2004–June
2005)
KRISTIN E. MARTIN, Senior Program Assistant (August 2005–January
2007)
v
OCR for page R6
BOARD ON BEHAvIORAL, COgNITIvE, AND SENSORy SCIENCES
PHILIP E. RUBIN (Chair), Haskins Laboratories; Department of Surgery,
Yale University
LINDA M. BARTOSHUK, Department of Psychology, University of
Florida, Gainesville
SUSAN E. CAREY, Department of Psychology, Harvard University
JOHN A. FEREJOHN, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
MARTIN FISHBEIN, Annenberg School for Communication, University
of Pennsylvannia
LILA R. GLEITMAN, Department of Psychology, University of
Pennsylvania
ARIE W. KRUGLANSKI, Department of Psychology, University of
Maryland, College Park
RICHARD E. NISBETT, Department of Psychology, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor
VALERIE F. REYNA, Department of Human Development, Cornell
University
LISA M. SAVAGE, Department of Psychology, SUNY Binghamton
BRIAN A. WANDELL, Department of Psychology, Stanford University
J. FRANK YATES, Judgment and Decision Laboratory, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor
CHRISTINE R. HARTEL, Board Director
vi
OCR for page R7
Acknowledgments
T
his report is the result of over 3 years of effort by a committee of
13 experts. The study was performed at the request of the United
States Air Force. The committee gathered and reviewed literature on
human behavior modeling efforts, listened to briefings and presentations
by military modelers and model users, and, using this information and its
combined expertise, has attempted to provide the Air Force with its best
advice on planning for future organizational modeling research.
Members of the study committee, volunteers selected from several
academic and professional practice specialties, found the project an interest-
ing and stimulating opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration. They
cooperated in work groups, learned each other’s technical languages, and
exemplified in their work the collegial qualities that are among the National
Academies’ unique strengths. We are grateful to them for their hard work,
expertise, and good humor.
On behalf of the committee, we would like to express our appreciation
to the many other people who contributed to this project. Janet Miller at
the Air Force Research Laboratory served as project monitor and provided
guidance as needed. Michael Young at the Air Force Research Laboratory
and John Tangney at the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (now at
the Office of Naval Research) were also helpful in supporting our work.
John Allen, Ted Fichtl, Alex Kott, Alex Levis, Robert Popp, and William
Rouse served as unpaid consultants and provided briefings that helped
the committee understand the role of organizational modeling in military
applications and the needs that such modeling could fill.
vii
OCR for page R8
viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
At the National Research Council (NRC), Susan Van Hemel, study
director for the project, Christine Hartel, director of the Center for Studies
of Behavior and Development, and Anne Mavor, director of the Committee
on Human Factors, provided support for the project. Two senior program
assistants, Jessica Martinez and Kristin Martin, provided administrative
and logistic support over the course of the study. Kristen A. Butler served
as research assistant and did extensive manuscript preparation work. The
executive office reports staff of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sci-
ences and Education, especially Christine McShane and Yvonne Wise,
provided valuable help with editing and production of the report. Kirsten
Sampson-Snyder managed the report review process.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for
their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with pro-
cedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the NRC. The pur-
pose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments
that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as
possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for
objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review
comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity
of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their participation in the review
of this report: Robert Axelrod, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy,
University of Michigan; Stephen J. DeCanio, University of California, Santa
Barbara Washington Program, Washington, DC; Larry Hirschhorn, Center
for Applied Research, Inc., Philadelphia, PA; Daniel R. Ilgen, Psychology
and Management, Michigan State University; Marco A. Janssen, School of
Human Evolution and Social Change, School of Computing and Informat-
ics Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, Arizona State Univer-
sity; Michael Prietula, Information Systems and Operations Management,
Emory University; and Amy Pritchett, School of Aerospace Engineering,
H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive
comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions
or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its
release. The review of this report was overseen by R. Duncan Luce, Institute
for Mathematical Behavioral Science, University of California, Irvine, as
review coordinator. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was
responsible for making sure that an independent examination of this report
was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all
OCR for page R9
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
reviewers’ comments were considered carefully. Responsibility for the final
content of this report, however, rests entirely with the authoring committee
and the institution.
Greg L. Zacharias and Jean MacMillan,
Cochairs
Committee on Organizational Modeling:
From Individuals to Societies
OCR for page R10
OCR for page R11
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Conclusions, 3
Recommendations, 4
Integrated Cross-Disciplinary Research Programs, 5
Independent Research Thrusts, 5
Thrust 1: Theory Development, 6
Thrust 2: Uncertainty, Dynamic Adaptability, and Rational
Behavior, 6
Thrust 3: Data Collection Methods, 7
Thrust 4: Federated Models, 7
Thrust 5: Validation and Usefulness, 8
Thrust 6: Tools and Infrastructure for Model Building, 9
Multidisciplinary Conferences and Workshops, 9
Roadmap for Future Research and Development, 10
PART I BACKgROuND AND NEED FOR
ORgANIzATIONAL MODELS 11
1 INTRODUCTION 13
Study Task and Objectives, 14
National Academies’ Response, 15
The Committee’s Approach, 15
Defining the Project Scope, 16
Gathering Data, 16
Data Analysis and Review, 16
xi
OCR for page R12
xii CONTENTS
Concepts and Definitions, 16
Cautions for IOS Modeling, 19
Organization of the Report, 20
References, 22
2 MILITARY MISSIONS AND HOW IOS MODELS CAN HELP 23
Military Missions Now and into the Future, 24
Overarching Strategy and Operational Enablers, 24
Dimensions of the New Battlespace, 26
The Impact of Urbanization, 26
The Growing Importance of Pre- and Postconflict Operations, 28
Changes in the Nature and Scale of Intervention Operations, 30
How IOS Behavioral Models Can Help the Military, 32
Potential Use of IOS Models for Analysis, Forecasting, and
Planning, 34
Models for Understanding, Forecasting, Shaping, and
Responding to Adversary Behavior, 36
Models for Understanding, Forecasting, and Shaping Societal
Behavior, 38
Models for Understanding Enemy Command and Control
Structures, 39
Models for Training and Mission Rehearsal, 40
Models for Military Systems Development, Evaluation, and
Acquisition, 42
Models for Enabling Command and Control Weapons
Systems, 43
Representative Model-Addressable Problems in a Scenario
Context, 45
Overview of Current DoD IOS Modeling Efforts, 48
The DMSO Master Plan for Modeling and Simulation, 48
Selected Current DoD Behavioral Modeling Efforts, 51
OneSAF Family of Models and Simulations, 52
Task Network Models and Tools, 52
Cognitive and Cognitive-Affective Architectures and Models, 53
Multiagent Systems, 54
Massively Multiplayer Online Gaming, 54
DIME/PMESII Models, 55
Simulation Frameworks and Tools, 58
Other Efforts, 58
Major Challenges for Development of IOS Models for Military
Applications, 58
Interoperability Challenges, 59
Data Collection and Validation Challenges, 60
OCR for page R13
xiii
CONTENTS
Conclusion, 61
Appendix, 62
References, 84
PART II STATE OF THE ART IN
ORgANIzATIONAL MODELINg 89
Categories of Models: Initial Empirical Results, 91
Methodology, 92
Results, 92
Four-Part Organizing Framework for Models, 94
Part II Guide, 95
References, 96
3 VERBAL CONCEPTUAL AND CULTURAL MODELS 97
Verbal Conceptual Models, 97
What Are Verbal Conceptual Models?, 97
State of the Art for Verbal Conceptual Models, 99
Relevance to Modeling Requirements, 100
Major Limitations, 102
Verification and Validation Issues, 103
Future Research and Development Requirements, 103
Cultural Modeling, 104
What Is Cultural Modeling?, 104
What Is Culture?, 105
State of the Art of Culture Models, 105
Cultural Inventory Models, 105
Dominant Trait Models, 109
Semantic Models, 113
Cultural Domain Analysis, 115
Relevance to Modeling Requirements and Major Limitations, 117
Data, Verification, and Validation Issues, 118
Future Research and Development Needs, 118
References, 119
4 MACRO-LEVEL FORMAL MODELS 122
System Dynamics Models, 122
What Is System Dynamics Modeling?, 122
State of the Art in System Dynamics Modeling, 129
Early History of System Dynamics, 129
More Recent Applications of System Dynamics Modeling, 130
Environments for System Dynamics Modeling, 133
Relevance, Limitations, and Future Directions, 133
OCR for page R14
xiv CONTENTS
Organizational Modeling, 135
What Is Organizational Modeling?, 135
State of the Art in Organizational Modeling, 138
Organization Theory Models, 138
Organizational Design Models, 141
Relevance, Limitations, and Future Directions, 143
References, 144
5 MICRO-LEVEL FORMAL MODELS 149
Cognitive Architectures. 149
What Are Cognitive Architectures?, 150
State of the Art, 153
ACT-R, 155
Soar, 155
EPIC, 156
COGNET, 157
OMAR, 157
MIDAS, 157
SAMPLE, 157
APEX, 158
Other Architectures, 158
Current Trends, 159
Verification and Validation Issues, 159
Relevance, Limitations, and Future Directions, 162
Relevance, 162
Major Limitations, 164
Future Directions, 166
Affective Models and Cognitive-Affective Architectures, 167
What Are Cognitive-Affective Architectures?, 168
Applications and Benefits of Cognitive-Affective Architectures, 171
State of the Art, 174
Models of Cognitive Appraisal, 175
Models of Emotion Effects on Cognition and
Cognitive-Affective Interactions, 178
Cognitive-Affective Architectures, 180
Relevance to Modeling Requirements, 181
Major Limitations, 182
Verification and Validation Issues, 182
Future Research and Development Requirements, 184
Expert Systems, 184
What Is an Expert System?, 185
State of the Art, 188
Expert System Shells and Development Environments, 189
OCR for page R15
xv
CONTENTS
Automatic Knowledge Acquisition and Learning, 189
Hybrid and Embedded Systems, 190
Representing and Reasoning Under Uncertainty, 190
Relevance, Limitations, and Future Directions, 190
Relevance, 190
Major Limitations, 191
Future Research and Development Requirements, 193
Decision Theory and Game Theory, 193
Overview, 193
What Are Decision Theory Models?, 195
What Are Game Theory Models?, 199
Relevance, Limitations, and Future Directions, 202
Relevance, 202
Major Limitations, 205
Future Research and Development Requirements, 205
References, 206
6 MESO-LEVEL FORMAL MODELS 215
Voting and Social Decision Models, 215
What Are Voting Models?, 216
State of the Art in Social Decision Modeling, 216
Preference Theory, 216
Social Choice Theory, 217
Strategic Voting, 219
Relevance, Limitations, and Future Directions for Social Decision
Models, 220
Social Network Models, 221
What Are Social Network Models?, 222
State of the Art in Social Network Models, 223
Nodes and Ties, 223
Multimode Networks, 224
Cohesion Models, 225
Centrality Models, 225
Equivalence Models, 226
Cohesive Subgroup Models, 227
Network Evolution, 228
Relevance, Limitations, and Future Directions, 229
Link Analysis, 231
What Is Link Analysis?, 231
State of the Art, 232
Relevance, Limitations, and Future Directions, 234
Agent-Based Modeling of Social Systems, 236
What Is Agent-Based Modeling?, 237
OCR for page R16
xvi CONTENTS
State of the Art, 238
ABM Structural Properties, 240
Number of Agents and Cognitive Sophistication, 241
Social Sophistication, 242
Agents in Grids, 242
ABM and Learning, 243
ABM and Social Networks, 244
ABM Development Issues, 245
Relevance, Limitations, and Future Directions, 246
Major Limitations, 247
Degree of Realism, 247
Model Trade-Offs, 248
Modeling of Actions, 249
Research and Development Requirements, 249
Tool Development, 249
Forecasting and Possibility Analysis, 251
Data Farming, 253
Cross-Disciplinary Initiatives, 254
Building Expertise, 255
Expected Outcomes, 256
References, 256
7 GAMES 261
What Are Massively Multiplayer Online Games?, 261
State of the Art, 264
Games as an Interaction Medium, 264
Games as a Set of Engaging and Immersive Models, 264
Games as an Interactive Laboratory, 265
Relevance, Limitations, and Future Directions, 266
Games as an Interaction Medium, 266
Games as a Set of Engaging and Immersive Models, 267
Games as an Interactive Laboratory, 268
References, 269
8 COMMON CHALLENGES IN IOS MODELING 271
Integration and Interoperability, 271
Model Interoperability: Incompatibilities and Functionality Gaps, 272
Interface Incompatibility, 272
Ontological Incompatibility, 274
Formalism Incompatibility, 274
Subdomain Gaps, 275
Recommendations for Resolving Gaps in Model Interoperability, 278
Dealing with Interface Incompatibility, 278
OCR for page R17
xvii
CONTENTS
Dealing with I-O Format Incompatibilities, 278
Dealing with Logical Incompatibilities, 280
Dealing with Model Persistence Format Incompatibilities, 280
Dealing with Ontological Incompatibility, 280
Dealing with Formalism Incompatibility, 282
Subdomain Gaps, 284
Frameworks and Toolkits, 284
General Issues and Requirements, 284
IDE Development Goals and Examples, 291
Human and System Modeling and Analysis Toolkit, 292
Modeling Terrorist Network Evolution, 295
Modeling Iraqi Recruiting Activity, 297
Advanced Analysis Capabilities, 298
Verification, Validation, and Accreditation, 301
General Issues: Validation for Use, 301
Validation for Understanding and Exploration, 304
Validation for Action, 305
Military Approaches to Verification, Validation, and
Accreditation, 313
Validation Issues Specific to Individual Modeling Approaches, 317
Validation of Conceptual Models, 317
Validation of Cultural Models, 318
Validation of Cognitive Models, 318
Validation of Cognitive-Affective Architectures, 319
Validation of Agent-Based Models, 319
Recommendations for Developing and Validating IOS Models, 320
Check with Multiple Experts, 320
Keep the Model as Simple as Possible for Its Purpose, 321
Examine “What Might Be” as Well as “What Is,” 321
Use Model Touching for Validation, 322
Data Issues and Challenges, 324
References, 326
9 STATE OF THE ART WITH RESPECT TO MILITARY NEEDS 329
Disrupt Terrorist Networks, 329
Forecast Adversary Response to Courses of Action, 331
Societal Forecasting, 332
Crowd Control Training, 333
Organizational Design: Force Composition and Command and
Control Architecture, 334
Reference, 336
OCR for page R18
xviii CONTENTS
PART III ADDRESSINg uNMET MODELINg NEEDS 337
10 PITFALLS, LESSONS LEARNED, AND FUTURE NEEDS 339
Pitfalls in Matching the Model to the Real World, 340
Model-Problem Mismatch, 340
All-Purpose Models That Ultimately Serve No Purpose, 341
Verification, Validation, and Accreditation, 343
Problems in Designing the Internal Structure of a Model, 345
Pitfall of Unvalidated Universal Laws, 345
One-Dimensional Models, 346
Kitchen Sink Models, 347
Pitfalls in Dealing with Uncertainty and Adaptation, 348
Unrealistic Expectations, 348
Illusions of Permanence, 349
Problems in Combining Components and Federating Models, 350
Moving from Individual to Collective Action, 350
Using Collective Attributes to Predict Individual Action, 351
Assemblage of Parts, 352
Summary of Future Needs, 354
References, 355
11 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MILITARY-SPONSORED
MODELING RESEARCH 356
Integrated Cross-Disciplinary Research Programs, 357
Independent Research Thrusts, 358
Thrust 1: Theory Development, 358
Thrust 2: Uncertainty, Dynamic Adaptability, and Rational
Behavior, 359
Thrust 3: Data Collection Methods, 360
Thrust 4: Federated Models, 361
Thrust 5: Validation and Usefulness, 362
Thrust 6: Tools and Infrastructure for Model Building, 362
Multidisciplinary Conferences and Workshops, 364
Roadmap for Recommended Research, 365
References, 369
APPENDIXES
A Acronyms and Abbreviations 373
B Exemplary Scenario and Vignettes to Illustrate Potential Model Uses 381
C Candidate DIME/PMESII Modeling Paradigms 389
D Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff 397
