Advertisement

Deception and Suspicion in Medical Interactions

  • C. Castelfranchi
  • F. de Rosis
  • F. Grasso
Chapter
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 511)

Abstract

Some years ago, we started a research study devoted at investigating the reasoning processes involved in the dialogues between agents with personality; we focused, in particular, on conflict resolution dialogues. In choosing an application domain, we decided to exploit the medical literature, both for ‘historical’ reasons (our personal research interests) and because dialogues in this scenario are complex enough to provide interesting ideas without being trivial. In a previous work (de Rosis and Grasso, 1997; de Rosis et al., 1998b), we examined the styles of reasoning that guides such a dialogue and we formalized these styles in a dialogue simulation system, XANTHIPPE. The system, developed in Lisp, had a believable behaviour in most of the simpler situations. However, it was not able to deal with more sophisticated aspects of the reasoning process, such as elusion, reticence, omission and other stronger forms of deception.

Keywords

Multiagent System Reasoning Process Belief Revision Medical Interaction Dialogue System 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bretier, P. and Sadek D. 1997. A rational agent as the kernel of a cooperative spoken dialogue system: implementing a logical theory of interaction. In LNAI `Intelligent Agents Jr, J P Mueller, M J Woolridge and N R Jennings Eds.Google Scholar
  2. Brody H. 1982. The lie that heals, the ethics of giving placebos. Annals of Internal Medicine. 97, 112–118.Google Scholar
  3. Carbonell J. 1980. Towards a process model of human personality traits. Artificial Intelligence, 15.Google Scholar
  4. Castelfranchi C., de Rosis F., Falcone R. and Pizzutilo S. 1998. Personality traits and social attitudes in Multi-Agent cooperation. Applied Artificial Intelligence, in press.Google Scholar
  5. Castelfranchi C., Falcone R. and de Rosis, F. 1998. Deceiving in GOLEM, how to strategically pilfer help. AA98 Workshop on `Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies’.Google Scholar
  6. Castelfranchi C. and Poggi I. 1998. “La scienza dell’inganno” Roma, NIS.Google Scholar
  7. Chu Carrol J. and Carberry S. 1995. Response generation in Collaborative Negotiation. ACL95.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen P. R. and Levesque H. J. 1995. Communicative actions for artificial agents. Proceedings of ICMAS 95Google Scholar
  9. Demolombe R. 1997. Formalizing the realiability of agent’s information. 4th Model Age workshop on “Formal Models of Agents”.Google Scholar
  10. DePaulo B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol S. E. and Wyer M. M. 1995. Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 5, 979–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Rosis F. and Grasso F. 1997. Simulating plausible conflict-resolution dialogues. First International Workshop on Human-Computer Conversation. Bellagio.Google Scholar
  12. de Rosis F., Grasso F. and Berry D. 1998. Refining instructional text generation after evaluation. Submitted to Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  13. de Rosis F., Grasso F., Castelfranchi C. and Poggi I. 1998. Modeling Conflict Resolution Dialogs. In press on a book on `Conflicts in AI’, R Dieng and J Mueller Eds.Google Scholar
  14. de Rosis F., Covino E., Castelfranchi C. and Falcone R. 1998. Bayesian cognitive diagnosis in believable multiagent systems. International Workshop on Belief Revision, Trento.Google Scholar
  15. Galliers J. R. 1992. Autonomous belief revision and communication.In: Belief Revision, P Gardenfors (Ed), Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 29, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Gardenfors P. 1992. Belief revision, an Introduction. In: Belief Revision, P Gardenfors (Ed), Gardenfors P 29, Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Glinert L. H. Side effect warnings in British medical package inserts, a discourse analytical approach. To appear on the International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics.Google Scholar
  18. Hope T. 1995. Deception and lying. Journal of Medical Ethics. 21, 67–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kashy D. A. and DePaulo B. M. 1996. Who lies? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,5, 1037–1051.Google Scholar
  20. Lee M. and Wilks Y. 1997. Eliminating deception and mistaken belief to infer conversational implicature. IJCAI97 Workshop on `Collaboration Cooperation and Conflict in Dialogue Systems’.Google Scholar
  21. Lelouche R. and Doublait S. 1992. Qualitative reasoning with bluff and beliefs in a multi-actor environment. hit J Man-Machine Studies, 36, 149–165.Google Scholar
  22. Nass C., Moon Y., Fogg B.J., Reeves B, and Dryer C. D. 1995. Can computer personalities be human personalities? Int I Human-Computer Studies, 43, 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Petrillo G. 1994. Relazioni asimmetriche e strategie di influenza sociale: analisi di conversazioni medico-paziente. In F Orletti: Fra conversazione e discorso. La Nuova Italia Scientifica, Roma.Google Scholar
  24. Quaresma P. and Lopez J. G. 1997. Modelling credulousness and cooperativeness in a Logic Programming framework. IJCAI97 Workshop on `Collaboration Cooperation and Conflict in Dialogue Systems’.Google Scholar
  25. Reilly W. S. and Bates J. 1995. Natural negotiation for believable agents. School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, CMU-CS-95–164.Google Scholar
  26. Ryan C. J., de Moore G. and Patfield M. 1995. Becoming none but tradesmen, lies, deceptions and psychotic patients. Journal of Medical Ethics. 21, 72–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Silverman D. 1987. Communication and medical practice. Chapter 9: Policing the lying patient, surveillance and self-regulation in consultations with adolescent diabetics. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Sycara K. P. 1991. Pursuing persuasive argumentation. AAAI Spring Symposium on Argumentation and Belief, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  29. Teasdale K. and Kent G. 1991. The use of deception in nursing. Journal of Medical Ethics. 21, 77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. VanDerHoek W., Van Linder B. and Meyer J. J. Ch. 1997. An integrated modal approach to rational agents. Utrecht University, Tech. Report UU-CS-1997–06.Google Scholar
  31. Vincent J. and Castelfranchi, C. 1981. On the art of deception: How to lie while saying the truth. In H. Parret, M. Sbisa’ and J. Verschueren (Eds.), Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics. Studies In Language Companion Series (Vol. 7 ). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1981.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Castelfranchi
  • F. de Rosis
  • F. Grasso

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations