Page 429 -

432 M. Neumann

control to autonomy. Internalisation of extrinsic motivation represents the bridge
between psychological integrity and social cohesion. While intrinsic motivation is
the paradigm of autonomous motivation, in the case of social behaviour regulation,
autonomy can only be reached through a process of internalisation.
How is the concept of identity described? With reference to William James
(1890), criteria for identity are formulated as consistency, continuity and effective-
ness. Identity consists of an inner and outer perspective. Moreover, personal and
social identities are differentiated (Tajfel 1970; Turner 1982; Turner and Onorato
1999). While the inner perspective is grounded on individual decisions, the outer
perspective is based on ascription of others. Examples are ethnic or gender identity.
However, the individual might decide to identify with these ascriptions. Then the
ascription becomes part of the inner perspective. Examples can be found throughout
the history. For instance, (beside other factors) elements of this psychological
mechanism can be revealed in the black power movement in the 1960s or the raise
of ethnic conflicts since the 1990s. Personal identity is the self-construction of a
personal biography. Social identity is determined by peer and reference groups. This
refers to social networks. While peers are the group to which the individual factually
belongs, the individual need not belong to the reference group. It is sufficient
to identify with the values of this group. For instance, this identification might
constitute sympathy for a political party. The social identity is decisively responsible
for the process by which social norms and values become part of individual
goals. This is particularly dependent on the salience of group membership. Norm
internalisation, however, is not a unidirectional process of the transmission of a
given norm. While embedded in a social environment, the individual has an active
role in the social group.

17.3.2 Normative Architectures

The brief overview of socialisation research suggests that for the design of normative
agents in particular two main decisions have to be made:
Is an antagonism or an identity (respective harmony) between individual and society
presumed? Hence, does the Artificial Society represent the theories of Durkheim
and Freud, or identity theories that follow G. H. Mead?
How is the effect of normative behaviour regulation on the individual agent
represented? Does the individual agent play an active or a passive role, i.e. has the
individual agent something comparable to a personal identity?
The second question leads to a follow-up question, namely:

If agents play an active role, if and how can this represent a process of identity
formation? In particular, are agents embedded in social networks of peer or
reference groups?