How to Design Agent-Based Marriage Market Models: A Review of Current Practices

Over the past decade, the number of studies that rely on agent-based modeling to explore the mechanisms that shape people’s marriage decisions has increased considerably. One reason why this approach has spread is that compared to other methods, agent-based modeling makes it easier to deal with the micro-macro problem that family researchers face: namely, that people’s partnering decisions are guided by their personal preferences, but their ability to realize these preferences is constrained by the social context in which they are embedded; and, at the same time, each marriage and each divorce alters the context in which subsequent decisions take place. This creates complex feedback effects between the micro and macro levels that can be difficult to address with standard tools of analysis. Agent-based modeling makes it possible to study such feedback effects, first by implementing assumptions about people’s preferences and the contexts in which they make their marriage decisions in a formal model; and, subsequently, by studying the interplay of these effects in systematic simulation experiments. However, developing an agent-based model comes with its own challenges. For example, it can be difficult to decide precisely how people’s preferences and behavior should be formally represented. As overcoming these challenges can seem like a daunting task for novice modelers, there is a need to develop guidelines that can aid researchers in creating their own models. In this chapter, I aim to take a first step toward meeting this need. I review and compare the ways in which earlier studies have implemented existing marriage market theories in agent-based models. Based on my findings, I then formulate some guidelines that should make it easier for current and future generations of family scholars to apply agent-based modeling in their own work.

[1]  W. Sanderson,et al.  Reconstruction of populations by age, sex and level of educational attainment for 120 countries for 1970-2000 , 2007 .

[2]  D. Buss,et al.  Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures , 1989, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[3]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Population Heterogeneity and Individual Differences in an Assortative Agent-Based Marriage and Divorce Model (MADAM) Using Search with Relaxing Expectations , 2008, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[4]  Tatiana Filatova,et al.  One Theory - Many Formalizations: Testing Different Code Implementations of the Theory of Planned Behaviour in Energy Agent-Based Models , 2018, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[5]  Wolfgang Lutz,et al.  Projection of Populations by Level of Educational Attainment, Age and Sex for 120 Countries for 2005-2050 , 2010 .

[6]  F. Billari Integrating macro- and micro-level approaches in the explanation of population change , 2015, Population studies.

[7]  G. Becker,et al.  An Economic Analysis of Marital Instability , 1977, Journal of Political Economy.

[8]  D. Buss,et al.  Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. , 1993, Psychological review.

[9]  Wander Jager,et al.  Enhancing the Realism of Simulation (EROS): On Implementing and Developing Psychological Theory in Social Simulation , 2017, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[10]  P. Chiappori,et al.  Divorce, Remarriage, and Welfare: A General Equilibrium Approach , 2006 .

[11]  Flaminio Squazzoni,et al.  Does Empirical Embeddedness Matter? Methodological Issues on Agent-Based Models for Analytical Social Science , 2005, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[12]  D. Kenrick,et al.  Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: what, whether, and why. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  Jacopo A. Baggio,et al.  Using agent-based models to compare behavioral theories on experimental data: Application for irrigation games , 2017 .

[14]  D. Kenrick,et al.  Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies , 1992, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[15]  J. Bavel,et al.  Agent-Based Modelling as a Tool to Advance Evolutionary Population Theory , 2016 .

[16]  Andres Baeza,et al.  A framework for mapping and comparing behavioural theories in models of social-ecological systems , 2017 .

[17]  A. Eagly,et al.  A sociocultural framework for understanding partner preferences of women and men: Integration of concepts and evidence , 2015 .

[18]  F. Billari,et al.  The "Wedding-Ring": An Agent-Based Marriage Model Based on Social Interaction , 2007 .

[19]  M. Macy,et al.  Social dynamics from the bottom up: Agent-based models of social interaction , 2009 .

[20]  Flaminio Squazzoni,et al.  Agent-Based Computational Sociology , 2012 .

[21]  Paul W. Eastwick,et al.  Possible Selves in Marital Roles: The Impact of the Anticipated Division of Labor on the Mate Preferences of Women and Men , 2009, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[22]  A. Grow,et al.  Assortative Mating and the Reversal of Gender Inequality in Education in Europe: An Agent-Based Model , 2015, PloS one.

[23]  S. Kalick,et al.  The Matching Hypothesis Reexamined , 1986 .

[24]  M. Zentner,et al.  Stepping Out of the Caveman’s Shadow , 2012, Psychological science.

[25]  G. Becker Chapter Title: a Theory of Marriage a Theory of Marriage , 2022 .

[26]  M. Kalmijn,et al.  Intermarriage and homogamy: causes, patterns, trends. , 1998, Annual review of sociology.

[27]  P. Todd,et al.  Aggregate age-at-marriage patterns from individual mate-search heuristics , 2005, Demography.

[28]  D. Buss,et al.  Preferences in human mate selection. , 1986 .

[29]  Peter Davis,et al.  Modelling "Marriage Markets": A Population-Scale Implementation and Parameter Test , 2013, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[30]  Robert M. French,et al.  KAMA: A Temperature-Driven Model of Mate Choice Using Dynamic Partner Representations , 2008, Adapt. Behav..

[31]  André Grow,et al.  Regression Metamodels for Sensitivity Analysis in Agent-Based Computational Demography , 2017 .

[32]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Modeling reproductive decisions with simple heuristics , 2013 .

[33]  Patrick Forber,et al.  The perils of tweaking: how to use macrodata to set parameters in complex simulation models , 2012, Synthese.

[34]  Jakub Bijak,et al.  Reforging the Wedding Ring: Exploring a Semi-Artificial Model of Population for the United Kingdom with Gaussian process emulators , 2013 .

[35]  Christine Schnor,et al.  The reversal of the gender gap in education and relative divorce risks: A matter of alternatives in partner choice? , 2017, Population studies.

[36]  Frank Safayeni,et al.  Using Computational Modeling for Building Theory: A Double Edged Sword , 2016, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[37]  Francesco C. Billari,et al.  Introduction: Agent-Based Computational Demography , 2003 .

[38]  F. Willekens Family and household demography , 2009 .

[39]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[40]  Uta Berger,et al.  Pattern-Oriented Modeling of Agent-Based Complex Systems: Lessons from Ecology , 2005, Science.

[41]  Michael C. Bailey,et al.  The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: testing the tradeoffs. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[42]  Günter J. Hitsch,et al.  Matching and Sorting in Online Dating , 2008 .

[43]  Joshua M. Epstein,et al.  Generative Social Science , 2006 .

[44]  Peter Hedstrom Dissecting the Social: List of tables , 2005 .

[45]  Peter Hedström Dissecting the Social by Peter Hedstrom , 2005 .

[46]  M. Macy,et al.  FROM FACTORS TO ACTORS: Computational Sociology and Agent-Based Modeling , 2002 .

[47]  Jakub Bijak,et al.  Design and Analysis of Demographic Simulations , 2017 .

[48]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  Modeling Mate Choice in Monogamous Mating Systems with Courtship , 2002, Adapt. Behav..