Abstract
In this paper we are interested in the computational and formal analysis of the persuasive impact that an argument can produce on a human agent. We propose a dual process cognitive computational model based on the highly influential work of Kahneman and investigate its reasoning mechanisms in the context of argument evaluation. This formal model is a first attempt to take a greater account of human reasoning and is a first step to a better understanding of persuasion processes as well as human argumentative strategies, which is crucial in collective decision making domain.
This work has been supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (grant ANR-12-CORD-0012) and has benefited from useful discussion in Dagstuhl Seminar 15221 “Multi-disciplinary approaches to reasoning”.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Note that S1 and S2 are linked as we will see in (1) of Definition 3.
- 2.
Inspired from the Desire-Generation rules (of Rahwan and Amgoud [25]).
- 3.
French funded project aiming at improving durum wheat sustainability (http://www.agence-nationale-recherche.fr/?Project=ANR-13-ALID-0002).
- 4.
Note that we could also have given more weight to the depth in the stack than to iteration or conversely, hence transform the equation into \({\mathtt {weight}}(D)=\alpha .\sum _{i=1}^n d_i +\beta .n\) with a “smart” tuning of the ratio between \(\alpha \) and \(\beta \) (this tuning should be based on psychological experiments).
- 5.
In practice, a constructive method to obtain \(R_\varphi \) could be an adaptation of Dijkstra algorithm on a graph where the vertices are partial reflection paths. An arc would link a vertex to another vertex if it corresponds to an extension of the path of one iteration (hence there would be as many arcs starting from a given vertex as the stack corresponding to this vertex is deep), namely there would be an arc between \((\varphi _1,\varphi _2)\) and \((\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)\). The algorithm should start from the vertex corresponding to the empty path (i.e. it corresponds to the initial concept \(\varphi \)) and find a shortest path to a vertex with a non-empty flag. The length of a path would be the \({\mathtt {weight}}\) of the reflection path \(R_\varphi \) contained in the last vertex of the path.
- 6.
Note that we propose to be neutral wrt an argument that uses an unknown warrant.
References
Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: An argumentation-based semantics for agent communication languages. In: ECAI 2002, pp. 38–42. IOS Press (2002)
Beevers, C.G.: Cognitive vulnerability to depression: a dual process model. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 25(7), 975–1002 (2005)
Benferhat, S., Dupin de Saint Cyr - Bannay, F.: Contextual handling of conditional knowledge. In: Proceedings of IPMU 1996, Granada, Spain, July 1996
Blair, J.A., Johnson, R.H.: Informal logic: an overview. Informal Logic 20(2), 93–108 (2000)
Burrows, R., Johnson, H., Johnson, P.: Developing an online social media system to influence pro-environmental behaviour based on user values. In: ICPT (2014)
Chaiken, S.: The heuristic model of persuasion. In: Social influence: The Ontario Symposium, vol. 5, pp. 3–37 (1987)
Cialdini, R.: Influence: Science and Practice. Allyn and Bacon, Boston (2001)
Clements, C.S.: Perception and persuasion in legal argumentation: using informal fallacies and cognitive biases to win the war of words. BYU Law Rev. 2013(2), 319 (2013)
Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., Mamede, S.: Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing. BMJ Qual. Saf. 22(Suppl 2), 58–64 (2013)
Epstein, S.: Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am. Psychol. 49(8), 709–724 (1994)
Evans, J.S.B.T., Curtis-Holmes, J.: Rapid responding increases belief bias: evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Think. Reasoning 11(4), 382–389 (2005)
Forget, A., Chiasson, S., van Oorschot, P.C., Biddle, R.: Persuasion for stronger passwords: motivation and pilot study. In: Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Hasle, P., Harjumaa, M., Segerståhl, K., Øhrstrøm, P. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5033, pp. 140–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Hamblin, C.: Fallacies. University paperback, Methuen (1970)
Hélie, S., Sun, R.: Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: a unified theory and a connectionist model. Psychol. Rev. 117(3), 994–1024 (2010)
Hornikx, J., Hahn, U.: Reasoning and argumentation: towards an integrated psychology of argumentation. Think. Reasoning 18(3), 225–243 (2012)
Korb, K.B., Mcconachy, R., Zukerman, I.: A cognitive model of argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 400–405 (1997)
Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., Magidor, M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artif. Intell. 44, 167–207 (1990)
Larue, O., Poirier, P., Nkambou, R.: Emotional emergence in a symbolic dynamical architecture. In: Chella, A., Pirrone, R., Sorbello, R., Jóhannsdóttir, K.R. (eds.) Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures 2012. AISC, vol. 196, pp. 199–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Lehto, T., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Explaining and predicting perceived effectiveness and use continuance intention of a behaviour change support system for weight loss. Behav. Inf. Technol. 34(2), 176–189 (2015)
Mackenzie, J.: Four dialogue systems. Stud. Logica 49(4), 567–583 (1990)
Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 17(6), 1223–1235 (2013)
Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (1969)
Petty, R., Cacioppo, J.: The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19(C), 123–205 (1986)
Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(2), 163–188 (2006)
Rahwan, I., Amgoud, L.: An argumentation based approach for practical reasoning. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pp. 347–354 (2006)
Sloman, S.A.: The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 119(1), 3–22 (1996)
Strannegård, C., von Haugwitz, R., Wessberg, J., Balkenius, C.: A cognitive architecture based on dual process theory. In: Kühnberger, K.-U., Rudolph, S., Wang, P. (eds.) AGI 2013. LNCS, vol. 7999, pp. 140–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Touretzky, D.: Implicit ordering of defaults in inheritance systems. In: Proceedings of AAAI 1984. University of Texas at Austin (1984)
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131 (1974)
van Knippenberg, D.: Social identity and persuasion: reconsidering the role of group membership. In: Social Identity and Social Cognition, vol. XVII, pp. 315–331 (1999)
Walton, D.: Logical Dialogue: Games and Fallacies. University Press of America, Lanham (1984)
Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)
Wood, W.: Attitude change: persuasion and social influence. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51(1), 539–570 (2000)
Zaller, J.: The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge Studies in Political Psychology Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M., de Saint-Cyr, F.D. (2015). Towards a Dual Process Cognitive Model for Argument Evaluation. In: Beierle, C., Dekhtyar, A. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9310. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23540-0_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23540-0_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23539-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23540-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)