Group outcomes can contradict individual behavioral propensities and escape lab study

Evidence

In essence, then, ABM is a tool for bridging the individual and aggregate levels of analysis. The extensive knowledge that psychologists have garnered regarding individual-level psychology is implemented by the rules that guide the behavior of individual agents. These processes also may be represented in the rules governing the natures and outcomes of interactions among agents. The aggregate level emerges as the multiple agents interact with one another and the environment over time. Beyond integrating these different levels of analysis, the great advantage of this approach is that, in many cases, the consequences of multiagent interactions over time fail to match what might be expected based on the behavioral propensities of individual agents, as in the cases of bystander intervention and the commons dilemma. Such emergent processes are all but impossible to study in the context of controlled laboratory experiments. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 822

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Schelling segregation models and emergence debates; resonates with the commons dilemma and bystander intervention literature the reader knows from social psychology. — connects to: Controlled experiments may not predict real-world intervention effects — Derek E. Holliday, Yphtach Lelkes, and Sean J. Westwood, Why Depolarization Is Hard: Evaluating…, 75