Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 R1
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 R1
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 R1

OCR for page R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1

OCR for page R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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