Agreements as the Grease (Not the Glue) of Society: A Cognitive and Social Science Perspective

Chapter
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 8)

Abstract

Building on the assumption that agreements are primarily useful for optimizing social interactions in view of individual interests (greasing society) rather than being meant to keep us together (gluing society), I offer a bird’s-eye view of several topics of interest in agreement theory for cognitive and social science. This brief review is far from comprehensive, and focuses instead on specific themes: a socio-cognitive analysis of the distinction between “being in agreement” and “having an agreement”, the multiple paths leading to agreement (e.g., norms, organizations, argumentation), how these phenomena both presuppose and facilitate agreements, and why a certain level of disagreement is to be desired even in the most well-ordered social system. The relevance of these considerations for the development of agreement technologies will also be explored.

Keywords

Artificial Agent Deliberative Democracy Doxastic Attitude Agreement Formation Mental Attitude 
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.

References

  1. Andrighetto, G., L. Tummolini, C. Castelfranchi, and R. Conte. 2009. A convention or (tacit) agreement betwixt us. In Normative multi-agent systems. Dagstuhl seminar proceedings 09121, ed. G. Boella, P. Noriega, G. Pigozzi, Verhagen, H. http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2009/1919.
  2. Baumeister, R., and M. Leary. 1995. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117(3): 497–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazerman, M., J. Curhan, D. Moore, K. Valley. 2000. Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology 51: 279–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belesiotis, A., M. Rovatsos, and I. Rahwan. 2010. Agreeing on plans through iterated disputes. In Proceedings of 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS 2010, ed. W. van der Hoek, G. Kaminka, Y. Lespérance, M. Luck, and S. Sen, 765–772. Toronto: ACM.Google Scholar
  5. Bowles, S. 2006. Group competition, reproductive leveling, and the evolution of human altruism. Science 314: 1569–1572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carletta, J. 1996. Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistics. Computa-tional Linguistics 22(2): 249–254.Google Scholar
  7. Casanovas, P. 2013. Agreement and relational justice: A perspective from philosophy and sociology of law. In Agreement technologies, ed. S. Ossowski, 19–42. Berlin: Springer, this volume.Google Scholar
  8. Castelfranchi, C., and R. Falcone. 2010. Trust theory: A socio-cognitive and computational model. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Conte, R., and C. Castelfranchi. 1995. Cognitive and social action. London: UCL.Google Scholar
  10. Conte, R., and M. Paolucci. 2002. Reputation in artificial societies: Social beliefs for social order. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Crawford, V. 1982. A theory of disagreement in bargaining. Econometrica 50(3): 607–638.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilbert, M. 1983. On social facts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Gilbert, M. 1993. Is an agreement an exchange of promises? The Journal of Philosophy 54(12): 627–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ginet, C. 2001. Deciding to believe. In Knowledge, truth, and duty, ed. M. Steup, 63–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 2004. Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Heras, S., V. Botti, and V. Julián. 2012. An abstract argumentation framework for supporting agreements in agent societies. In Proceedings of the HAIS 2010, ed. E. S. Corchado Rodriguez, et al., Part II, 177–184. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Hong, H., and J. Stein. 2006. Disagreement and the stock market. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(2): 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Olfati-Saber, R., A. Fax, and R. Murray. 2007. Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems. Proceedings of the IEEE 95(1): 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ossowski, S. 2008. Coordination and agreement in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the CIA-2008, ed. M. Klusch, M. Pechoucek, and A. Polleres, 16–23. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Paglieri, F. 2010. Committed to argue: on the cognitive roots of dialogical commitments. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning, ed. C. Reed and C. W. Tindale, 59–71. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Prothro, J., and C. Grigg. 1960. Fundamentals principles of democracy: Bases of agreement and disagreement. The Journal of Politics 22(2): 276–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Surowiecki, J. 2004. The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. London: Little/BrownGoogle Scholar
  23. Svejnar, J. 1986. Bargaining power, fear of disagreement, and wage settlements: Theory and evidence from the U.S. Industry. Econometrica 54(5): 1055–1078.Google Scholar
  24. Van Eemeren, F., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Wainryb, C., L. Shaw, M. Langley, K. Cottam, and R. Lewis. 2004. Children’s thinking about diversity of belief in the early school years: Judgments of relativism, tolerance, and disagreeing persons. Child Development 75(3): 687–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Waldron, J. 1999. Law and disagreement. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Walton, D., and E. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: SUNY.Google Scholar
  28. Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wansing, H. 2006. Doxastic decisions, epistemic justification, and the logic of agency. Philosophical Studies 128: 201–227.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Widdows, K. 1979. What is an agreement in international law? British Yearbook of International Law 50: 117–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Woods, J. 2005. Epistemic bubbles. In: we will show them: essays in honour of Dov Gabbay, ed. S. Artemov, H. Barringer, A. d’Avila Garcez, L. Lamb, and J. Woods, vol. II, 731–774. London: College Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Goal-Oriented Agents Lab (GOAL)Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione, CNRRomaItaly

Personalised recommendations