Persuasion Artifices to Promote Wellbeing

  • Fiorella de Rosis
  • Irene Mazzotta
  • Maria Miceli
  • Isabella Poggi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3962)


We propose a theory of a-rational persuasion in which we integrate emotional and non emotional strategies by arguing that they both imply reasoning and planning abilities in the two participants. We show some examples of texts from a corpus of persuasion messages in the healthy eating domain and propose a formalism to represent this knowledge. The final goal of our research is to simulate user-adapted persuasion dialogs about healthy eating.


Healthy Eating Cognitive Dissonance Argumentation Scheme Natural Language Generation Planning Ability 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Walton, D.N.: The place of emotion in argument. The Pennsylvania State University Press, Philadelphia (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jorgensen, P.E.: Affect, persuasion and communication processes. In: Andersen, P.A., Guerrero, L.K. (eds.) Handbook of Communication and Emotion, Academic Press, London (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miceli, M., de Rosis, F., Poggi, I.: Emotional and non emotional persuasion. Applied Artificial Intelligence: an International Journal (in press)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Toulmin, S.: The Use of Arguments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Ma (1958)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kienpointner, M.: How to Classify Arguments. In: van Eermeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J.A., Willard, C.A. (eds.) Argumentation Illuminated, pp. 178–188 (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walton, D.N.: Nonfallacious Arguments From Ignorance. American Philosophical Quarterly 29, 381–387 (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walton, D.N., Reed, C.A.: Argumentation schemes and defeasible inferences. In: Carenini, G., Grasso, F., Reed, C. (eds.) Working Notes of the ECAI 2002 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, Lyon (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Poggi, I.: The goals of persuasion. Pragmatics and Cognition 13(2), 297–336 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lazarus, R.S.: Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schwarz, N.: Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. In: Higgins, E.T., Sorrentino, R.M. (eds.) Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, vol. 2, pp. 527–561. Guilford Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Festinger, L.: A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL (1957)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pearl, J.: Probabilistic Reasoning in Expert Systems: Networks of Plausible Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1988)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spiegelhalter, D.J.: Probabilistic Reasoning. In: Kanal, L.N., Lemmer, J.F. (eds.) Predictive Expert System, Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4, pp. 357–369. Elsevier Science, North-Holland (1986)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zukerman, I., Jinah, N., McConachy, R., George, S.: Recognizing intentions from rejoinders in a bayesian interactive argumentation system. In: Mizoguchi, R., Slaney, J.K. (eds.) PRICAI 2000. LNCS, vol. 1886, pp. 241–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gratton, C.: Counterexamples and degree of support. In: Carenini, G., Grasso, F., Reed, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Arguments, in the scope of ECAI 2002, Lyon (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Das, S.: Logic of probabilistic arguments. In: Carenini, G., Grasso, F., Reed, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Arguments, in the scope of ECAI 2002. Lyon (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Green, N.: Towards an empirical model of argumentation in medical genetics. In: Carenini, G., Grasso, F., Reed, C. (eds.) Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Arguments, Acapulco (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carofiglio, V.: Modelling argumentation with belief networks. In: Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Arguments (CMNA 2004), Valencia, pp. 22–24 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fiorella de Rosis
    • 1
  • Irene Mazzotta
    • 1
  • Maria Miceli
    • 2
  • Isabella Poggi
    • 3
  1. 1.Intelligent Interfaces, Department of InformaticsUniversity of BariItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, National Research CouncilRoma
  3. 3.Department of EducationUniversity of Roma TreItaly

Personalised recommendations