Advertisement

Designing Persuasive Dialogue Systems: Using Argumentation with Care

  • Hien Nguyen
  • Judith Masthoff
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5033)

Abstract

Persuasive dialogue systems that aim to change people’s attitudes and behaviours have drawn much attention in recent years due to their great practical potential. Current systems rely heavily on argumentation and advice-giving to form their persuasive messages. Many findings in psychology, and some counselling intervention methods such as Motivational Interviewing (MI) dispute this confrontational approach. Our project sets out to investigate whether MI can provide an alternative way to develop a more effective system. In this paper, we discuss the limitations of the argumentation-based approach, review a number of argumentation-based systems, and present the results of an evaluation study which compares people’s perception of the persuasibility of two argumentation-based dialogues and a MI-based counterpart. Our results show a higher perceived persuasiveness for the MI-based dialogue.

Keywords

persuasive dialogue systems argumentation motivational interviewing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rollnick, S., Kinnersley, P., Stott, N.: Methods of helping patients with behaviour change. British Medical Journal (International ed.) 307, 188–190 (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Graugaard, P., Holgersen, K., Eide, H., Finset, A.: Changes in physician-patient communication from initial to return visits: a prospective study in a haemotology outpatient clinic. Patient Education and Counseling (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Keefe, J.D.: Persuasion: theory and research. Sage, Newbury Park (1990)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stiff, J.B., Mongeau, P.A.: Persuasive Communication, 2nd edn. The Guilford Press (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Acceptance, yielding and impact: cognitive processes in persuasion. In: Petty, R.E., Ostrom, T.M., Brock, T.C. (eds.) Cognitive Responses In Persuasion. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1981)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bensing, J.: Bridging the gap. The separate worlds of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered medicine. Patient Education and Counseling 39, 17–25 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stewart, M.: Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. Journal of Can Med. Assoc. 152, 1423–1433 (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller, W.R., Rollnick, S.: Motivational interviewing. The Guildford Press, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nguyen, H., Masthoff, J., Edwards, P.: Modelling a receiver’s position to persuasive arguments. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Palo Alto, California, pp. 176–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rollnick, S., Heather, N., Bell, A.: Negotiating behaviour change in medical settings: the development of brief motivational interviewing. Journal of Mental Health 1, 25–37 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McGuire, W.J., McGuire, C.V.: Enhancing self-esteem by directed-thinking tasks: cognitive and affective positivity asymmetries. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70, 1117–1125 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petty, R.E., Wegener, D.T.: Attitude change: multiple roles for persuasion variables. In: Gilbert, D., Fiske, S., Lindzey, G. (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edn. pp. 323–390 (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, W.R., Benefield, R., Tonigan, S.: Enhancing motivation for change in problem drinking: a controlled comparison of the two therapist styles. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 61(3), 455–461 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prochaska, J.O., Norcross, J.C.: Stages of change. Psychotherapy 38(4), 443–448 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Revere, D., Dunbar, P.J.: Review of computer-generated outpatient health behavior interventions: clinical encounters “in absentia”. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 1, 62–79 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jarvis, K.L., Friedman, R.H., Heeren, T., Cullinane, P.M.: Older women and physical activity: using telephone to walk. Womens Health Issues 7, 24–29 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Turnin, M.C., Beddok, R.H., Clottes, J.: Telematic expert system Diabeto: new tool for diet self-monitoring for diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 15, 204–212 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Friedman, R.H., Kazis, L.E., Jette, A.: A telecommunications system for monitoring and counseling patients with hypertension: impact on medication adherence and blood pressure control. Am. J. Hypertension 9, 285–292 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Friedman, R.H., Stollerman, J.E., Mahoney, D.M., Rozenblum, L.: The virtual visit: using telecommunications technology to take care of patients. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 4, 413–425 (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Friedman, R.H.: Automated telephone conversations to assess health behavior and deliver behavioral interventions. J. Med. Syst. 22, 95–102 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hyman, D.J., Herd, J.A., Ho, K.S.I., Dunn, J.K., Gregory, K.A.: Maintenance of cholesterol reduction using automated telephone calls. Am. J. Prev. Med. 12, 129–133 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grasso, F., Cawsey, A., Jones, R.: Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53, 1077–1115 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mazzotta, I., de Rosis, F.: Artifices for persuading to improve eating habits. In: AAAI Spring Symposium on Argumentation for consumers of health care, pp. 76–85 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mazzotta, I., de Rosis, F., Carofiglio, V.: PORTIA: a user-adapted persuasion system in the healthy eating domain. IEEE Intelligent Systems (in press, 2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Praise, S., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., Waters, K.: Cooperating with life-like interface agents. Computers in Human Behavior 15(2), 123–142 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bailor, A.L., Rosenberg-Kima, R.B., Plant, E.A.: Interface agents as social models: the impact of appearance on females’ attitude toward engineering. In: Proceedings of CHI 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nguyen, H., Masthoff, J.: Is it me or is it what I say? Source image and persuasion. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Persuasive Technology, pp. 231–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meyerowitz, B.E., Chaiken, S.: The effect of message framing on breast self-examination: attitudes, intention, and behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52, 500–510 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L., Gaeth, G.J.: All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 76(2), 149–188 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smoke-free pregnancy – motivational interviewing: a guide for midwives http://motivationalinterview.org
  31. 31.
    Bickmore, T., Giorgino, T.: Some novel aspects of health communication from a dialogue systems perspective. In: AAAI Fall Symposium on Dialogue Systems for Health Communication (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bickmore, T., Schulman, D.: Practical approaches to comforting users with relational agents. In: ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), San Jose, CA (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ondersma, S.J., Chase, S.K., Svikis, D.S., Schuster, C.R.: Computer-based brief motivational intervention for perinatal drug use. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 28, 305–312 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ondersma, S.J., Svikis, D.S., Schuster, C.R.: Computer-based brief intervention. A randomized trial with postpartum women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 32(3), 231–238 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hien Nguyen
    • 1
  • Judith Masthoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing Science DepartmentUniversity of Aberdeen 

Personalised recommendations