Character Artificial Intelligence CE00875-3

1. Character Artificial IntelligenceCE00875-3 Crowds and Emotion Lecture 5

2. Crowd Modeling and Simulation • Aspects of crowd models: • Assembly • Movement • Aggression • Dispersion • Current focus mostly on: • Pedestrian behavior • Emergency exit • Important for: • Architecture • Law enforcement • Emergency management

3. Background and Purpose • Crowd modeling and simulation are areas that are increasing exponentially • Models and technology may outpace theory and literature

4. Key questions • What is the purpose for the crowd modeling? • Determine how individuals or the entire crowd would behave based on a certain task objectives • Model overall crowd patterns such as queuing and herding behavior • Are the variables applied to real world situations or tested only in a virtual environment? • Which variables are modelled? • E.g., emotions, gender, age, or previous and current knowledge

5. The literature is fragmented • Crowd vs. Individual • Is impact of individual-difference variables studied at the crowd level or at the individual level? • Macroscopic vs. microscopic models • Macroscopic: Fluid Dynamics • Microscopic: Psychology • How will the crowd react? vs. How will the individuals in the crowd react?

6. Constructive vs. VE: • What is the output of the crowd simulation? • VE simulations have high visual appeal, but that does not make them more correct • Constructive simulation uses symbolic representation which may facilitate recognition of macroscopic crowd behaviors

7. Models with individual-difference variables improve but are not yet convincing • Use of real-world validations for models of individual difference variables in crowds: • O'Connor et al. (2005) and Casburn (2006), reported to have collected such data and that they intend to present it in future papers.

8. Models with individual-difference variables improve but are not yet convincing • A lot of the results still focused on emergency decision making, behavior, motion • Fatigue, emotional connection, and social networks seem to be the most often used individual difference variables • These can be “disguised” as culture and other variables.

9. Social Force Models provide a suitable point of departure • Social Force Models are based on the ‘generalized behavior concept’ • The specific Social Force Model proposed by Helbing, Molnar, Farkas and Vicsek (HMFV model, 2002) is a self-driven, many particles model using push-pull effects to describe pedestrian behavior in crowds. • HMFV model allows consideration of social phenomena such as herding and flocking

10. Finding 3: Social Force Models provide a suitable point of departure • We are modifying and extending the Social Force Model proposed by Helbing, Molnar, Farkas and Vicsek (2002). • The intent is to allow a distribution of individual characteristics within any crowd. • Example: Age distribution impacts… • Personal Space • Speed • Randomness

11. Future Research Needs • Variables affecting actual crowds: • One collective vs. companion clusters vs. assembly of individuals? • Information propagation through crowds • Methods to extract information from actual crowds (e.g., videos) • Optic flow • Pixel tracking

12. Future Research Needs (cont.) • Center Line 0.5 • Lower Control • Limit = Out of Control Region ith Observation Number (Observation Vector) • Computational approaches that allow the inclusion of individual difference variables in crowd models • Social Force Models • Randomness • Methods for the verification and validation of the resulting models • e.g., principal components analysis • see Malone et al., Thursday AM

13. A Final Quote… • “Crowds are the elephant man of the social sciences. They are viewed as something strange, something pathological, something monstrous. At the same time they are viewed with awe and with fascination. However, above all, they are considered to be something apart. We may choose to go and view them occasionally as a distraction from the business of everyday life, but they are separate from that business and tell us little or nothing about normal social and psychological realities . Such an attitude is reflected in the remarkable paucity of psychological research on crowd processes and the fact that it is all but ignored by the dominant paradigms in social psychology.” (Reicher, 2001, p. 182) • From: Reicher, S. D. (2001). "The psychology of crowd dynamics." Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes: 182–208.

14. ViCrowd • Crowd • Virtual human agent (agent) • Sensors, memory, perception, motor • Action, reaction • Group • A group of agents • Crowd • A set of groups

15. ViCrowd • Control • Guided : interactive control • Programmed : pre-defined behaviors using script language • Autonomous : rule-based behaviors

16. ViCrowd • A priority of behaviors • Avoiding collision with obstacles • Walking • Reaction from panic event, e.g. looking for the exit doors • Go to some position

17. ViCrowd • A priority of behaviors • Avoiding collision with obstacles • Walking • Reaction from panic event, e.g. looking for the exit doors • Go to some position • Guided > Autonomous > Programmed > Inherent

18. Interaction

19. Interaction • Motion • Action • Events • Reactions • Status • Environment information

20. Interaction Entities • Motion • Go to specific position • Action • Apply a specific posture • Events • Can be activated by the external control • Reaction • Some parameters of reaction can be sent via external controller

21. Interaction Entities • Internal status of groups • E.g. the group emotion • Environment information • Declare obstacles that have to be avoided • Declare regions where the crowd can walk

22. Interaction Paradigm • Information exchanged for interacting with a group or an agent • Selection • Motion • Action • State • Events/reactions • Request • Knowledge

23. Interaction Paradigm • Selection paradigm • To select a/an group/agent depending on some conditions (status, location, goal) • Motion paradigm • To define a specific motion to be applied by the selected entity • Action paradigm • Actions to be applied by the crowd • A body posture , interaction with objects

24. Interaction Paradigm • State paradigm • Set the parameters to change the internal state of agents/groups • Behavior data, Quantitative data, Internal status data • Density paradigm • Events/Reactions paradigm • Activate/Deactivate events/reactions

25. Interaction Paradigm • Request paradigm • E.g. Position, orientation, emotion of group, goal of group, the current group behaviors • Environment paradigm

26. Multi-Client Architecture • Server-client architecture • Server • Coordinator • Client • Behavior clients • ViCrowd client • Rule-based behavior system (RBBS) client • Database client • Environment client (ENVIR) • Interface clients • Texture user interface (TUI) • Dataglove client, speech recognition client, sound client

28. Group Relations (GR) Described • The primary, hidden motivation of a group is to SURVIVE as a GROUP • This motivation causes the group to seek leadership that can accomplish this goal • The seeking of “survival” oriented leadership creates a hidden, latent, dual “group-within-the-group” that is emotionally primitive and mostly irrational.

29. Bruce Tuckman • Bruce Tuckman • The “Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing” guy • The concept is circa 1965 • Paper, “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups” • Modern Tuckman Theory now includes ‘Adjourning’ (terminating) which is interesting in light of Group Relations assertion that system-level SURVIVAL is a key motivation of all groups

30. Bruce Tuckman- 5th Stage • “Adjourning”- added circa 1977: • We reviewed 22 studies that had appeared since the original publication of [my] model…These articles, one of which dubbed the stages the 'Tuckman hypothesis' tended to support the existence of the four stages but also suggested a fifth stage for which a perfect rhyme could not be found. We called it 'adjourning'. (Tuckman 1984)

31. Bruce Tuckman • Adjourning • Added to Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing as 5th stage…… • Associated with mourning, loss, sadness • Tends to support research on group motivation • Group Relations theory says that primary, latent, unspoken motivation of a group is to survive AS a group

32. Building on Tuckman: Robert Bales • Forming-(Storming-Norming-Performing) is a cycle, not a pure linear model • See Bales, R. F. (1965) “The equilibrium problem in small groups” in A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta and R. F. Bales (eds.) Small Groups: Studies in social interaction, New York: Knopf.

33. The Basic (BA) Assumption Group • Main motivation of BA group is to SURVIVE as a group • SURVIVAL motive drives need for leadership • Leadership of the latent, hidden BA group takes 1 of 4 basic forms at any given time • Dependence. Fight/Flight. • Pairing. Oneness.

34. The Basic Assumption Dependence • Basic Assumption Dependence occurs when the group behaves as if it has met in order to depend on someone or something. • The essential aim of this level of group functioning is to attain security and protection from one (sometimes two) individual(s), • either the designated leader or a member who assumes that role.

35. Basic Assumption Fight/Flight • The group will act as if it has met to fight or run away from something • The group perceives its survival as dependent on either fighting (active aggression, scapegoating, physical attack) or fleeing from the task (withdrawal, passivity, avoidance, ruminating on past history).

36. Basic Assumption Flight/Flight • Anyone who mobilizes the aggressive forces of the group is granted leadership • Persistent bickering, in-fighting, and competition make most leadership efforts short lived. • In flight “mode”, leadership is usually bestowed on an individual who minimizes the importance of the task and facilitates the group movement away from the here-and-now. (towards past or future)

37. Basic Assumption Pairing • Based on an observation of the way in which two people in a small group may come to dominate its process by talking to each other • Creates an ‘expectation’ that a solution will be produced from the 2-party discussions, a solution that will solve the problem of surviving as a group.

38. Basic Assumption: Pairing • Pairing phenomena including bonding between two individuals in a group, 2 who express intellectual harmony, leading to perceived bonding and closeness. • Can be any 2 persons with membership in the group • Pair is intellectually active in discussions in front of the group; when this happens the rest of the members GO INACTIVE-- and do not contribute to the conversation.

39. Basic Assumption: Pairing • When in this mode: • Group perceives that its survival is contingent on the “expectation” that the pair will produce a “deliverer”(an idea, solution or panacea) to save the group and help it complete its task. • This mode is all about ‘expectation’ solution or product…..not ‘delivery’ of said solution or product.

40. Basic Assumption Oneness • Visible when group members seek to submit to a cause or movement larger then themselves, and thereby seek to feel well-being and centeredness • The group commits itself to a "movement" - a cause outside itself- as a way of survival. • Leaders who offer “methods of joining in” become attractive to the group in this last type of basic assumption function.

41. One Cast of Characters, 2 Groups: • The Work Group- comes together to focus on and complete a task • Example: Scrum team • The basic-assumption group- coexists in the same time and space • At any given time, is prone to exhibit on of the 4 basic assumptions • Is a tremendous source of WASTE because basic-assumption behavior diverts energy AWAY FROM task completion • Why? What happens when the task is complete?

42. Unconscious Group-Level Behaviors • The latent, underlying focus of a group is to seek leadership that can satisfy immediate gratification of one of 4 ‘basic assumption’ ways: • Dependency, Fight/Flight, Pairing, Oneness • Group can ‘draft’ leaders (non-verbally) who can give expression to group-level, basic-assumption impulses • Group seeks immediate gratification of the impulse to be dependent, or fight or flee, etc • You can be DRAFTED by group without even being aware of what is happening

43. Unconscious Group-Level Behaviors • Oscillation- the group can cycle between all 4 modes of unconscious functioning in a single period of observation, oscillating between: • Dependency • Fight/Flight • Pairing • Oneness • All of this produces waste by diverting attention away from tasks

44. The Unconscious Group-as-a-Whole • The basic assumption life of any group is ‘always on’ • If the above is true, then: • It is imperative for a work group to rid itself of its basic-assumption strivings and provide structures and vehicles to channel these strong, primitive feelings. • Dictators and patriarchs satisfy dependency needs; • The military and industry promotes and leverages “fight/flight” motivation;

45. The Unconscious Group-as-a-Whole • The basic assumption life of any group is ‘always on’ • If the above is true, then: • The aristocracy and the political system – with emphasis on breeding and succession - build on basic assumption “pairing”. • The interest in causes, religion, mysticism and cosmic consciousness suggests expression of basic assumption “oneness”.

46. The ‘Panic’ model • Part of the irrationalist tradition in crowd psychology • a) Threat causesemotion to overwhelm reason • b) Collective identity breaks down • c) Selfish behaviours- pushing, trampling • d) Contagion-these behaviours spread to crowd as a whole • But mass panic is v. rare!

47. Social attachment model-Mawson (2005) • In emergencies, people seek out attachment figures: social norms rarely break down • But, such ties can have fatal consequences- people escape (or die) in groups • Improves on panic model, and supported by evidence from disasters, (Cornwell, 2001) but problems remain: • a) Implies that panic in a crowd of strangers is more likely • b) Why do strangers co-operate in emergencies?

48. The self-categorisation approachTurner (1987) • Disasters create a common identity or sense of ‘we-ness’- Clarke (2002) • This can result in orderly, altruistic behaviour as people escape common threat • Increased threat can enhance common identity

49. Research • Can existing psychological models of crowd behaviour can be applied to emergencies? • 3 different areas of research; • interviews, • room evacuations, • and VR simulations

50. Results from interviews • Common identity quickly emerges • Co-operative rather than selfish behaviour predominates • If selfish behaviour happens, it is usually isolated and rarely spreads