Artifices for persuading to improve eating habits

AAAI Spring Symposium - Technical Report

Volumn SS-06-01, Issue , 2006, Pages 76-85

  Mazzotta, Irene ^a   De Rosis, Fiorella ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BARI   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA ACQUISITION; HEALTH CARE; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS;

ARTIFICES; EATING HABITS; EMOTIONAL STRATEGIES; PERIPHERAL ROUTE;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

EID: 33747201341     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon. T., and McBurney, P. 2004:Justifying practical reasoning. Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Arguments (CMNA'04).Valencia.
2. Berry, D.C., Butler, L.T. and De Rosis, F. 2005:Evaluating a realistic agent in an advice-giving task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 63:304-327.
3. Carofiglio, V. 2004: Modeling argumentation with belief networks. Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Arguments (CMNA'04).Valencia, Spain
4. de Rosis, F., Cavalluzzi, A., and De Carolis,. B. 2006:Interazione affettiva con agenti animati. Cahiers Romans de Sciences Cognitives. ISSN 1267-8015. N.2.
5. Festinger, L. 1957: A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL.
6. Green, N. 2003: Towards an empirical model of argumentation in medical genetics. Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Arguments.
7. Grosz, B. and Sidner, C. 1986: Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 3.
8. Harmon-Jones, E. and Mills, J.1999: Cognitive dissonance: progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Americal Psychological Association Books.
9. Kienpointner, M. 1992: How to Classify Arguments. In F.H. van Eermeren, R.Grootendorst, J.A.Blair, and C.A.Willard (Eds.), Argumentation Illuminated.
10. Levin,I.P., Schneider, S.L.,and Gaeth,G.J. 1998: All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. 76, 2, 149-188.
11. Meyerowitz, B.E. and Chaiken, S. 1987: The effect of message framing on breast self-examination: attitudes, intention and behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52,500-510.
12. Miceli, M., de Rosis, F. and Poggi, I.: Emotional and non emotional persuasion. Applied Artificial Intelligence: an International Journal. In press
13. Pearl, J. 1988: Probabilistic Reasoning in Expert Systems:Networks of Plausible Reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann (Pubs.).
14. Reed, C. and Rowe, G. 2001: Araucaria. Software for puzzles in argument diagramming and XML. Department of Applied Computing. University of Dundee, Technical Report.
15. Rosselli, F., Skelly, J.J., and Mackie, D.M. 1995: Processing rational and emotional messages: the cognitive and affective mediation of persuasion. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology. 31, 163-190.
16. Tversky, A. And Kahneman, D. 1981: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 211, 453-458.
17. Walton, D. N. 1992: The place of emotion in argument. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
18. Walton, D.N. and Reed, C.A. 2002: Argumentation schemes and defeasible inferences. In G.Carenini, F. Grasso, and C.A. Reed (Eds.), Working Notes of the ECAI'2002 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, Lyon.
19. Walton, D.N. 1996: Practical reasoning and the structure of fear appeal arguments. Philosophy and Rhetoric. 29, 4.
20. Walton, D.N. 2005: How to evaluate argumentation using schemes, diagrams, critical questions and dialogues. Scorns: Argumentation in Dialogic Interactions. 51-74.