Approaches to Verbal Persuasion in Intelligent User Interfaces

  • Marco Guerini
  • Oliviero Stock
  • Massimo Zancanaro
  • Daniel J. O’Keefe
  • Irene Mazzotta
  • Fiorella de Rosis†
  • Isabella Poggi
  • Meiyii Y. Lim
  • Ruth Aylett
Part of the Cognitive Technologies book series (COGTECH)


People tend to treat computers as social actors, even if these are usually designed as mere tools. This forces computers to play a social role without having the social skills to be successful (Reeves and Nass, 1996).


Argumentation Scheme Natural Language Generation Persuasive Message Intelligent User Interface Persuasive Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ach L, Morel B (2007) Intelligent Virtual Agents, chapter Avatars contributions to commercial applications with living actor technology, Springer, Berlin, pp 411–412Google Scholar
  2. Ahluwalia R (2000) Examination of psychological processes underlying resistance to persuasion. J Consumer Res 27(2):217–232Google Scholar
  3. Allbeck J, Badler N (2002) Toward representing agent behaviours modified by personality and emotion. In: Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-Agent systems, Bologna, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrè E, Rist T, van Mulken S, Klesen M, Baldes S (2000) The automated design of believable dialogues for animated presentation teams. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 250–255Google Scholar
  5. Andrè E, Rehm M, Minker W, Buhler D (2004) Endowing spoken language dialogue systems with emotional intelligence. In: André E, Dybkjaer L, Minker W, Heisterkamp P (eds) Affective dialogue systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 178–187Google Scholar
  6. Aylett RS (2000) Emergent narrative, social immersion and “storification”. In: Proceedings of narrative interaction for learning environments, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  7. Berdichevsky D, Neuenschwander E (1999) Toward an ethics of persuasive technology. Commun ACM Arch, 42(5):51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bosmans A, Warlop L (2005) How vulnerable are consumers to blatant persuasion attempts? Technical report, DTEW Research Report 0573, K.U. Leuven, 2005Google Scholar
  9. Brown P, Levinson SC (1987) Politeness Some universals in language use. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchanan BG, Shortliffe EH (1984) Rule-based expert systems. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  11. Carenini G, Mittal V, Moore J (1994) Generating patient specific interactive explanations. In: Proceedings of 18th symposium on computer applications in medical care (SCAMC ’94). McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  12. Carofiglio V (2004) Modelling argumentation with belief networks. In: Proceedings of the ECAI workshop on computational models of natural argument, Valencia, SpainGoogle Scholar
  13. Carofiglio V, de Rosis F (2003) Combining logical with emotional reasoning in natural argumentation. In: Proceedings of the UM’03 workshop on affect, Pittsburgh, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Carofiglio V, de Rosis F (2005) In favour of cognitive models of emotions. In: Proceedings of the AISB workshop on ‘mind minding agents’, 2005, Hatfield, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  15. Castelfranchi C (1996) Reasons: beliefs structure and goal dynamics. Mathw Soft Comput, 3(2):233–247Google Scholar
  16. Castelfranchi C, Guerini M (2007) Is it a promise or a threat? Pragmat Cogn Journal, 15(2):277–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chaiken S (1980) Heuristic vs. systematic information processing and the use of source vs message cues in persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol, 39:752–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cialdini RB (1993) Influence. The psychology of persuasion. William Morrow & Company, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  19. Coutinho S, Sagarin BJ (2006) Resistance to persuasion through inductive reasoning. Stud Learn Eval Innovat Dev 3(2):57–65Google Scholar
  20. Das S (2002) Logic of probabilistic argument. In: Proceedings of the ECAI 2002 workshop on computational model of natural argument, Lyon, pp 9–18Google Scholar
  21. Davison J, Arthur J (2003) Active Citizenship and the development of social literacy: a case for experiential learning. Citizenship and Teacher Education, CanterburyGoogle Scholar
  22. de Rosis F, Grasso F (2000) Affective natural language generation. In Paiva A (ed) Affective interactions. Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol 1814, pp 204–218Google Scholar
  23. DeCarolis B, de Rosis F, Carofiglio V, Pelachaud C (2001) Interactive information presentation by an embodied animated agent. In: International workshop on information presentation and natural multimodal dialogue, Verona, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  24. Dehn DM, van Mulken S (2000) The impact of animated interface research: a review of empirical research. Int J Hum Comput Stud 52:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Duboue P, McKeown K (2003) Statistical acquisition of content selection rules for natural language generation. In: Proceedings of EMNLP-03, 8th conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, Sapporo, Japan, pp 121–128Google Scholar
  26. Ekman P (1992) Telling lies – clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. Norton and CoGoogle Scholar
  27. Elliott (1994) Multi-media communication with emotion driven ‘believable agents’. In: AAAI technical report for the spring symposium on believeable agents, Stanford University, pp 16–20Google Scholar
  28. Fiedler A, Horacek H (2002) Argumentation within deductive reasoning. In: Proceedings of the ECAI 2002 workshop on computational model of natural argument, Lyon, pp 55–64Google Scholar
  29. Fleischman M, Hovy E (2002) Towards emotional variation in speech-based natural language generation. In: Proceedings of the second international natural language generation conference (INLG02), Arden Conference Center, Harriman, NY, USA, pp 57–64Google Scholar
  30. Fogg BJ (2002) Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  31. Ford S, Forlizzi J, Ishizaki S (1997) Kinetic typography: issues in time-based presentation of text. In: CHI97 conference extended abstracts, Atlanta, Georgia, pp 269–270Google Scholar
  32. Forlizzi J, Lee J, Hudson SE (2003) The kinedit system: affective messages using dynamic texts. In: CHI2003 conference proceedings, Fort Lauderdale, FL, pp 377–384Google Scholar
  33. Friestad M, Wright P (1994) The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion attempts. J Consumer Res 21(1):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Frijda NH, Manstead ASR, Bem S (eds) (2000) Emotions and beliefs. chapter The inuence of emotions on beliefs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 45–77Google Scholar
  35. Garau M, Slater M, Bee S, Sasse MA (2001) The impact of eye gaze on communication using humanoid avatars. In: Proceedings of the SIG-CHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Seattle, Washington, pp 309–316Google Scholar
  36. Geyskens K, Dewitte S, Millet K (2006) Stimulating referral behavior may backfire for men: the effect of referral failure on susceptibility to persuasion. Technical report, KUL Working Paper No. OR 0609, 2006Google Scholar
  37. Gmytrasiewicz PJ, Lisetti CL (2001) Emotions and personality in agent design and modeling. In: Proceedings of the user modeling 2001 workshop on attitude, personality and emotions in user adapted interaction, Sonthofen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  38. Grasso F, Cawsey A, Jones R (2000) Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. Int J Hum Comput Stud 53(6):1077–1115zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Guerini M (2006) Persuasion models for multimodal message generation. PhD thesis, University of TrentoGoogle Scholar
  40. Guerini M, Stock O (2005) Toward ethical persuasive agents. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI workshop on computational models of natural argument, EdimburhGoogle Scholar
  41. Guerini M, Stock O, Zancanaro M (2003) Persuasion models for intelligent interfaces. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI workshop on computational models of natural argument, Acapulco, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  42. Guerini M, Stock O, Zancanaro M (2007) A taxonomy of strategies for multimodal persuasive message generation. Appl Artif Intell J 21(2):99–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Guerini M, Strapparava C, Stock O (2008a) Corps: a corpus of tagged political speeches for persuasive communication processing. J Info Tech Polit 5(1):19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Guerini M, Strapparava C, Stock O (2008b) Valentino: a tool for valence shifting of natural language texts. In: Proceedings of LREC2008, Marrakech, MaroccoGoogle Scholar
  45. Guerini M, Stock O, Zancanaro M (2004, August) Persuasive strategies and rhetorical relation selection. In: Proceedings of the ECAI workshop on computational models of natural argument, Valencia, SpainGoogle Scholar
  46. Harmon-Jones E (2000) Emotions and beliefs. In: Frijda NH, Manstead ASR, Bem S (eds) A cognitive dissonance theory perspective on the role of emotion in the maintenance and change of beliefs and attitudes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 185–211Google Scholar
  47. Henriksen T (2004) Beyond role and play – tools, toys and theory for harnessing the imagination. chapter On the transmutation of educational role-play: a critical reframing to the role-play to meet the educational demands, Ropecon Ry, Helsinki, pp 107–130Google Scholar
  48. Horacek H (2006, September) Argument understanding and argument choice – a case study. In: Proceedings of the ECAI workshop on computational models of natural argument, Riva del Garda, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  49. Hovy E (1988) Generating natural language under pragmatic constraints. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  50. Hullett CR (2005) The impact of mood on persuasion: a meta-analysis. Commun Res, 32(4):423–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ibanez J (2004) An intelligent guide for virtual environments with fuzzy queries and flexible management of stories. PhD thesis, Departamento de Ingenieria de la Informacion y las Communicaciones, Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, SpainGoogle Scholar
  52. Ishizaki S (1998) On kinetic typography. Statements, the Newsletter for the American Center of Design, 12(1):7–9Google Scholar
  53. Jurafsky D, Martin JH (2000) Speech and languageprocessing: an introduction to natural language processing, speech recognition, and computational linguistics. Prentice-Hall, NJGoogle Scholar
  54. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A. (eds) Judgment under Uncertainty:heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  55. Kibble R (2006) Dialectical text planning. In: Proceedings of ECAI workshop on computational modelling of natural argumentation, Riva del Garda, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  56. Kraus S, Lehmann D (1995) Designing and building a negotiating automated agent. Comput Intell 11(1):132–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kraus S, Sycara K, Evenchik A (1998) Reaching agreements trough argumentation: a logic model and implementation. Artif Intell J, 104:1–69zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  58. Kukafka R (2005) Consumer health informatics: informing consumers and improving health care. In: Lewis D, Eysenbach G, Kukafka R, Stavri PZ, Jimison H (eds) Tailored health communication, Springer, New York, NY, pp 22–33Google Scholar
  59. Langkilde I, Knight K (1998) The practical value of n-grams in derivation. In: Hovy E. (ed) Proceedings of the ninth international workshop on natural language generation’, New Brunswick, NJ. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 248–255Google Scholar
  60. Lewin K (1951) Field theory in social science. Harper and Row, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  61. Lim MY, Aylett R, Jones C (2005) Empathic interaction in a virtual guide. In: Proceedings of virtual social agents joint symposium, University of Hertfordshire, UK, AISB Symposia, pp 122–129Google Scholar
  62. Lim MY (2007) An intelligent guide with attitude. chapter Emotions, behaviours and belief regulation. School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  63. Lodder AR (1999) DiaLaw: on legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation. KluwerGoogle Scholar
  64. Mann W, Thompson S (1987) Rhetorical structure theory: a theory of text organization. Ablex Publishing CorporationGoogle Scholar
  65. Marcu D (1996) The conceptual and linguistic facets of per-suasive arguments. In: Proceedings of the ECAI workshop, gaps and bridges: new directions in planning and natural language generation, Budapest, Hungary, 12 August 1996, pp 43–46Google Scholar
  66. Marcu D (1997) The rhetorical parsing, summarization, and generation of natural language text. University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  67. Mazzotta I, Novielli N, Silvestri E, de Rosis F (2007) ‘O francesca, ma che sei grulla?’ Emotions and irony in persuasion dialogues. In: Proceedings of the 10th Conference of AI*IA – Special Track on ‘AI for Expressive Media’. AI*IA 2007: Artificial Intelligence and Human-Oriented Computing, Springer LNCS 4733/2007, pp 602–613Google Scholar
  68. Mazzotta I, de Rosis F, Carofiglio V (2007) Portia: a user-adapted persuasion system in the healthy eating domain. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Special Issue on Argumentation Technology., In pressGoogle Scholar
  69. Miceli M (1992) How to make someone feel guilt: Strategies of guilt inducement and their goals. J Theory Soc Behav 22(1):81–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Miceli M, de Rosis F, Poggi I (2006) Emotional and non-emotional persuasion. Appl Artif Intell 20:849–879Google Scholar
  71. Moulin B, Irandoust H, Belanger M, Desordes G (2002) Explanation and argumentation capabilities: towards the creation of more persuasive agents. Artif Intell Rev 17:169–222zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nass C, Moon Y, Fogg B, Reeves B (1995) Can computer personalities be human personalities? Int J Human-Comput Stud 43:223–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. O’Keefe DJ (1997) Standpoint explicitness and persuasive effect: a meta-analytic review of the effects of varying conclusion articulation in persuasive messages. Argument Advocacy 34:1–12Google Scholar
  74. O’Keefe DJ (1999a) How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: a meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. Communi Yearbook 22:209–249Google Scholar
  75. O’Keefe DJ (1999b) Variability of persuasive message effects: meta-analytic evidence and implications. Document Design 1:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. O’Keefe DJ (2000) Guilt and social influence. Communi Yearbook 23:67–101Google Scholar
  77. O’Keefe DJ (2002) Persuasion: theory and research (2nd ed). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  78. O’Keefe DJ, Jensen JD (2006) The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of noncompliance? a meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. Commun Yearbook 30:1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ortony A, Clore GL, Collins A (1988) The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  80. Parson S, Jennings NR (1996) Negotiation trough argumentation-a preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the international conference on multi-agent system, Kyoto, pp 267–274Google Scholar
  81. Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1969) The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame PressGoogle Scholar
  82. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 19:123–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Petty RE, Gleicher F, Baker SM (1991) Emotion and social judgements, chapter Multiple roles for affect in persuasion. Pergamon PressGoogle Scholar
  84. Piaget J (1972) The principles of genetic epistemology. Routledge & Keegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  85. Piwek P (2002) An annotated bibliography of affective natural language generation. ITRI ITRI-02-02, University of BrightonGoogle Scholar
  86. Poggi I (2005) The goals of persuasion. Pragmat Cogn 13(2):297–336CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  87. Poggi I, Pelachaud C, De Carolis BN (2001) To display or not to display? towards the architecture of a reflexive agent. In: Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on attitude, “Personality and emotions in user-adapted interaction”. User modeling 2001, Sonthofen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  88. Prakken H, Reed C, Walton D (2003) Argumentation schemes and generalizations in reasoning about evidence. In: ICAIL 2003, pp 32–41Google Scholar
  89. Prendinger H, Ishizuka M. (eds). Life-like characters: tools, affective functions and applications. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  90. Radev D, McKeown K (1997) Building a generation knowledge source using internet-accessible newswire. In: Proceedings of the 5th conference on applied natural language processing, Washington, DC, pp 221–228Google Scholar
  91. Rao AS, Georgeff MP (1991) Modeling rational agens within a bdi architecture. In: Allen J, Fikes R, Sandewall R. (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on principles of knowledgerepresentation and reasoning. Morgan Kaufman, pp 473–484Google Scholar
  92. Reed CA, Grasso F (2007) Recent advances in computational models of argument. Int J Intell Syst, 22(1):1–15zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Reed CA, Long DP (1997) Ordering and focusing in an architecture for persuasive discourse planning. In: Proceedings of the 6th European workshop on natural language generation (EWNLG97), Duisburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  94. Reed CA, Long DP (1998) Generating the structure of argument. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on computational linguistics and 36th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (COLING-ACL98), Montreal, Canada, pp 1091–1097Google Scholar
  95. Reed CA, Rowe GWA (2004) Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int J AI Tools 14(3–4):961–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Reed CA, Walton D (2007) Argumentation schemes in dialogue. In: Hansen HV, Tindale CW, Johnson RH, Blair JA (eds) Dissensus and the search for common ground (Proceedings of OSSA 2007), Windsor, ONGoogle Scholar
  97. Reed CA, Wells S (2007) Dialogical argument as an interface to complex debates. IEEE Intell Syst 22(6):60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Reed CA, Long DP, Fox M (1996) An architecture for argumentative dialogue planning. In: Practical reasoning: proceedings of the first international conference on formal and applied practical reasoning (FAPR96). Springer, Berlin, pp 555–566Google Scholar
  99. Reed CA, Long DP, Fox M, Garagnani M (1997) Persuasion as a form of inter-agent negotiation. In: Multi-agent systems: methodologies and applications: selected papers from the proceedings of the 2nd australian workshop on distributed AI, pp 120–136, Cairns, Australia, 1997. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  100. Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  101. Rehm M, Andrè E (2005a) Informing the design of embodied conversational agents by analysing multimodal politeness behaviors in human-human communication. In: Proceedings of the AISB 2005 symposium on conversational informatics for supporting social intelligence and interaction, Hatfield, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  102. Rehm M, Andrè E (2005b) Catch me if you can – exploring lying agents in social settings. In: Proceedings of the international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, Utrecht (Olanda), pp 937–944Google Scholar
  103. Rehm M, Wissner M (2005) Gamble – a multiuser game with an embodied conversational agent. In: Entertainment computing – ICEC 2005: 4th international conference, New York, pp 180–191 2005. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  104. Reiter E, Dale R (2000) Building natural language generation systems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Reiter E, Robertson R, Osman L (2003a) Lesson from a failure: generating tailored smoking cessation letters. Artif Intell 144:41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Reiter E, Sripada S, Robertson R (2003b) Acquiring correct knowledge for natural language generation. J Artif Intell Res 18:491–516zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  107. Restificar AC, Ali SS, McRoy SW (1999a) Arguer: using argument schemas for argument detection and rebuttal in dialogs. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on user modelling (UM-99), Banff, Canada, pp 315–317Google Scholar
  108. Restificar AC, Ali SS, McRoy SW (1999b) Argument detection and rebuttal in dialogs. In: Proceedings of the twenty first annual meeting of the cognitive science society (Cogsci-99), Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  109. Scherer KR (1995) Expression of emotion in music. J Voice 9(3):235–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Scott AC, Clayton JE, Gibson EL (1991) A practical guide to knowledge acquisition. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  111. Sillince JAA, Minors RH (1991) What makes a strong argument? emotions, highly-placed values and role playing. Commun Cogn 24(3&4):281–298Google Scholar
  112. Smith MH, Garigliano R, Morgan RC (1994) Generation in the lolita system: an engineering approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th international workshop on natural language generation, Kennebunkport, Maine, pp 241–244Google Scholar
  113. Sopory P, Dillard JP (2002) The persuasive effects of metaphor: a meta-analysis. Human Commun Res 28:382–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Stock O, Guerini M, Zancanaro M (2006) Interface design and persuasive intelligent user interfaces. chapter The foundations of interaction design. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  115. Toulmin S (1958) The use of arguments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  116. Vreeswijk G, Lodder AR (2005) Gearbi: towards an online arbitration environment based on the design principles simplicity, awareness, orientation, and timeliness. Artif Intell Law 13(2):297–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Walton DN (1996) Argumentation Schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  118. Walton DN (1998) The new dialectic. University of Toronto PressGoogle Scholar
  119. Walton DN (1999) Dialectical relevance in persuasion dialogue. Inf Logic 19(2–3):119–143Google Scholar
  120. Walton DN (2000) Syntheses 2000. chapter The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication Studies. Number 123. Kluwer, The Netherlands, pp 327–346Google Scholar
  121. Walton DN (2006a) Examination dialogue: an argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. J Pragmat 38:745–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Walton DN (2006b) How to make and defend aproposal in a deliberation dialogue. Artif Intell Law 14(3):177–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Walton DN, Godden DM (2005) Persuasion dialogue in online dispute resolution. Artif Intell Law 13(2):273–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Walton DN, Reed CA (2002) Argumentation schemes and defeasible inferences. In: Proceedings of the ECAI 2002 workshop on computational model of natural argument, LyonGoogle Scholar
  125. Walton DN (1990) What is reasoning? what is argument? J Philos 87:399–419CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  126. Witte K, Allen M (2000) A meta-analysis of fear appeals: implications for effective public health programs. Health Educ Behav, 27:591–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Wooldridge M (2002) An introduction to multiagent systems. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  128. Young K (2001) The neurology of narrative. SubStance – Issue 94/95 30(2):72–84Google Scholar
  129. Zuckerman I (2001) An integrated approach for generating arguments and rebuttals and understanding rejoinders. In: UM01 proceedings – the eighth international conference on user modeling, Sonthofen, Germany, pp 84–94Google Scholar
  130. Zuckerman I, Jinah N, McConachy R, George S (2001) Recognizing intentions from rejoinders in a bayesian interactive argumentation system. In PRICAI2000, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  131. Zukerman I, George S (2005) A probabilistic approach for argument interpretation. User Model User-Adapt Int 15(1):5–53Google Scholar
  132. Zukerman I, McConachy R, Korb K, Pickett D (1999) Explanatory interaction with a bayesian argumentation system. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Stockholm, pp 1294–1299Google Scholar
  133. Zukerman I, McConachy R, Korb K (2000) Using argumentation strategies in automated argument generation. In: Proceedings of the 1st international natural language generation conference, Mitzpe Ramon, Israel, pp 55–62Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Guerini
    • 1
  • Oliviero Stock
    • 1
  • Massimo Zancanaro
    • 1
  • Daniel J. O’Keefe
    • 2
  • Irene Mazzotta
    • 3
  • Fiorella de Rosis†
  • Isabella Poggi
    • 4
  • Meiyii Y. Lim
    • 5
  • Ruth Aylett
    • 5
  1. 1.Fondazione Bruno Kessler-IrstPovo, TrentoItaly
  2. 2.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  3. 3.University of BariBariItaly
  4. 4.University of Rome 3RomeItaly
  5. 5.Heriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations