Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Opportunities for Argument-Centric Persuasion in Behaviour Change

  • Conference paper
Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2014)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 8761))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The aim of behaviour change is to help people overcome specific behavioural problems in their everyday life (e.g. helping people to decrease their calorie intake). In current persuasion technology for behaviour change, the emphasis is on helping people to explore their issues (e.g. through questionnaires or game playing) or to remember to follow a behaviour change plan (e.g. diaries and email reminders). So explicit argumentation with consideration of arguments and counterarguments are not supported with existing persuasion technologies. With recent developments in computational models of argument, there is the opportunity for argument-centric persuasion in behaviour change. In this paper, key requirements for this will be presented, together with some discussion of how computational models of argumentation can be harnessed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cialdini, R.: Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. HarperCollins (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fogg, B.: Persuasive computers. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computings Systems, CHI, pp. 225–232 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lehto, T., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Persuasive features in six weight loss websites: A qualitative evaluation. In: Ploug, T., Hasle, P., Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6137, pp. 162–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Langrial, S., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Less fizzy drinks: A multi-method study of persuasive reminders. In: Bang, M., Ragnemalm, E.L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7284, pp. 256–261. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Zwinderman, M.J., Shirzad, A., Ma, X., Bajracharya, P., Sandberg, H., Kaptein, M.C.: Phone row: A smartphone game designed to persuade people to engage in moderate-intensity physical activity. In: Bang, M., Ragnemalm, E.L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7284, pp. 55–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaipainen, K., Mattila, E., Kinnunen, M., Korhonen, I.: Facilitation of goal-setting and follow-up in internet intervention for health and wellness. In: Ploug, T., Hasle, P., Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6137, pp. 238–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Constructing argument graphs with deductive arguments: A tutorial. Argument and Computation 5(1), 5–30 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The aspic+ framework for structured argumentation: A tutorial. Argument and Computation 5(1), 31–62 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Toni, F.: A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation. Arument and Computation 5(1), 89–117 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Garcia, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: Delp-servers, contextual queries, and explanations for answers. Argument and Computation 5(1), 63–88 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Arguments, dialogue and negotiation. In: Fourteenth European Conference on Artifcial Intelligence (ECAI 2000), pp. 338–342. IOS Press (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Black, E., Hunter, A.: An inquiry dialogue system. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 19(2), 173–209 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dignum, F., Dunin-Keplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Dialogue in team formation. In: Dignum, F.P.M., Greaves, M. (eds.) Agent Communication. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1916, pp. 264–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fan, X., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation dialogues. In: Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), pp. 198–203 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hamblin, C.: Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37, 567–583 (1971)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Mackenzie, J.: Question begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 117–133 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11, 315–334 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. McBurney, P., van Eijk, R., Parsons, S., Amgoud, L.: A dialogue-game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 7, 235–273 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. J. of Logic and Comp. 13(3), 347–376 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J. of Logic and Comp. 15(6), 1009–1040 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hunter, A.: Making argumentation more believable. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2004, pp. 269–274. MIT Press (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hunter, A.: Towards higher impact argumentation. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2004, pp. 275–280. MIT Press (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Formal handling of threats and rewards in a negotiation dialogue. In: Proceedings of AAMAS, pp. 529–536 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hunter, A.: Reasoning about the appropriateness of proponents for arguments. In: Proceedings of AAAI, pp. 89–94 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentationframeworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Bench-Capon, T., Doutre, S., Dunne, P.: Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 171(1), 42–71 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Oren, N., Atkinson, K., Li, H.: Group persuasion through uncertain audience modelling. In: Proceedings of the International Comference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), pp. 350–357 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Prakken, H.: Formal sytems for persuasion dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review 21(2), 163–188 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6), 1009–1040 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Caminada, M., Podlaszewski, M.: Grounded semantics as persuasion dialogue. In: Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), pp. 478–485 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Haenni, R.: Cost-bounded argumentation. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 26(2), 101–127 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Dung, P., Thang, P.: Towards (probabilistic) argumentation for jury-based dispute resolution. In: Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010), pp. 171–182. IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Li, H., Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Probabilistic argumentation frameworks. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7132, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Thimm, M.: A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2012), pp. 750–755 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hunter, A.: Some foundations for probabilistic argumentation. In: Proceedings of the International Comference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), pp. 117–128 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hunter, A.: A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 54(1), 47–81 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Hunter, A., Thimm, M.: Probabilistic argumentation with incomplete information. In: Proceedings of ECAI (in press, 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rienstra, T., Thimm, M., Oren, N.: Opponent models with uncertainty for strategic argumentation. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2013. IJCAI/AAAI (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hunter, A.: Modelling uncertainty in persuasion. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8078, pp. 57–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2008). AAAI Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Riveret, R., Prakken, H., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Heuristics in argumentation: A game theory investigation. In: Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 172, pp. 324–335. IOS Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Matt, P.-A., Toni, F.: A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation. In: Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.) JELIA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5293, pp. 285–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Arguing using opponent models. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6057, pp. 160–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Hunter, A., Thimm, M.: Probabilistic argument graphs for argumentation lotteries. In: Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2014). IOS Press (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Mechanism design for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2008), pp. 1031–1038. IFAAMAS (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rahwan, I., Larson, K., Tohmé, F.: A characterisation of strategy-proofness for grounded argumentation semantics. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2009), pp. 251–256 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Fan, X., Toni, F.: Mechanism design for argumentation-based persuasion. In: Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), pp. 322–333 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Narita, T., Kitamura, Y.: Persuasive conversational agent with persuasion tactics. In: Ploug, T., Hasle, P., Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6137, pp. 15–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. Hadjinikolis, C., Siantos, Y., Modgil, S., Black, E., McBurney, P.: Opponent modelling in persuasion dialogues. In: Proceedings of IJCAI (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Black, E., Hunter, A.: Executable logic for dialogical argumentation. In: European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2012), pp. 15–20. IOS Press (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hunter, A.: Analysis of dialogical argumentation via finite state machines. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

    Anthony Hunter

Authors
  1. Anthony Hunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Madeira, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal

    Eduardo Fermé

  2. CENTRIA, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica, Portugal

    João Leite

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Hunter, A. (2014). Opportunities for Argument-Centric Persuasion in Behaviour Change. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8761. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11557-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11558-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation