A taxonomy of strategies for multimodal persuasive message generation

Applied Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 99-136

  Guerini, Marco ^a   Stock, Oliviero ^a   Zancanaro, Massimo ^a  

^a ITC IRST   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTEXT SENSITIVE GRAMMARS; DATA REDUCTION; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SOFTWARE PROTOTYPING; USER INTERFACES;

BRIDGE PERSUASION STRATEGIES; INTELLIGENT PERSUASIVE SYSTEMS; PROMOTERS; TAXONOMY;

INTELLIGENT AGENTS;

EID: 33847318275     PISSN: 08839514     EISSN: 10876545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08839510601117169     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Ainsworth, M. and J. Bowlby. 1991. An ethological approach to personality development. American Psychologist 46:333-341.
2. Berdichevsky, D. and E. Neuenschwander. 1999. Toward an ethics of persuasive technology. Communications of the ACM Archive 42(5):51-58.
3. Bostrom, R. 1983. Persuasion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
4. Bratman, M. 1987. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Callaway, C., E. Not, and O. Stock. in press. Report generation for post-visit summaries in museum environments. In: PEACH: Intelligent Interfaces for Museum Visits Cognitive, Technologies Series, eds. O. Stock and M. Zancanaro, Berlin: Springer.
6. Garofiglio, V. and F. de Rosis. 2003. Combining logical with emotional reasoning in natural argumentation. In Proceedings of the UM'03 Workshop on Affect, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
7. Castelfranchi, C. 1990. Social power: A missed point in DAI, MA, and HCI.. In: Decentralized AI, eds. Y. Demazeau and J. P. Mueller, 49-62. North Holland, Elsevier Science Publisher.
8. Castelfranchi, C. 1996. Reasons: Beliefs structure and goal dynamics. Mathware & Soft Computing 3(2):233-247.
9. Carenini, G. 2003. Evaluating user-tailored evaluative arguments: Persuasive effectiveness and its communicative appropriateness. In Proceedings of the IJCAI 2003 Workshop on Computational Model of Natural Argument, Acapulco, Mexico.
10. Castro, J., M. Kolp, and J. Mylopoulos. 2002. Towards requirements-driven software development methodology: The Tropos project. Information Systems 27(2):365-389.
11. Cialdini, R. B. 1993. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc.
12. Cohen, P. and H. Levesque. 1990. Persistence, intention, and commitment. In: Intentions in Communication, eds. P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, 33-70. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Cohen, P. R. and H. J. Levesque. 1987. Persistence, Intention, and Commitment Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Conte, R. and C. Castelfranchi. 1995. Cognitive and Social Action. London: UCL Press.
15. Das, S. 2002. Logic of probabilistic argument. In Proceedings of the ECAI 2002 Workshop on Computational Model of Natural Argument, Lyon, France.
16. De Carolis, B., V. Carofiglio, M. Bilvi, and C. Pelachaud. 2002. APML: A mark-up language for believable behavior generation. In Proceedings of AAMAS 2002 Workshop on "Embodied Conversational Agents: Let's Specify and Compare Them." Bologna, Italy.
17. Fagin, R. and J. Y. Halpern. 1988. Belief, awareness and limited reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 34:39-76.
18. Festinger, L. 1957, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19. Fiedler, A. and H. Horacek. 2002. Argumentation within deductive reasoning. In Proceedings of the ECAI 2002 Workshop on Computational Model of Natural Argument, pages 55-64, Lyon, France.
20. Fogg, B. J. 2002. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
21. Forlizzi, J., J. Lee, and S. E. Hudson. 2003. The Kinedit system: Affective messages using dynamic texts. In Proceedings of the CHI'2003 Conference, New York, USA.
22. Grasso, F., A. Cawsey, and R. Jones. 2000. Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: A case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53(6):1077-1115.
23. Guerini, M. 2006. Persuasion Models for Multimodal Message Generation. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Trento, March 2006.
24. Guerini, M., O. Stock, and M. Zancanaro. 2004. Persuasive strategies and rhetorical relation selection. In Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, Valencia, Spain.
25. Guerini, M. and O. Stock. 2005. Toward ethical persuasive agents. In Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, Edinburgh, Scotland.
26. Guerini, M. and C. Castelfranchi. 2006. Promises and threats in persuasion. In Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, Riva del Garda, Italy.
27. Gmytrasiewicz, P. J. and C. L. Lisetti, 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. Sonthopen, Germany.
28. Hareli, S. and R. Harush. 2004, The Role of a Sender's Emotional Expression in Persuasion, paper presented at the Annual meeting of the International Society for Research of Emotions, New York, New York.
29. Kahneman, D., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky, eds. 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. Kraus, S., K. Sycara, and A. Evenchik. 1998. Reaching agreements trough argumentation: A logic model and implementation, Artificial Intelligence Journal 104:1-69.
31. Lodder, A. R. 1999. DiaLaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
32. Mann, W. C. and S. Thompson. 1987. Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization. In: The Structure of Discourse, ed. L. Polanyi, pages 85-96, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
33. Marcu, D. 1997. The Rhetorical Parsing, Summarization, and Generation of Natural Language Text. Toronto: University of Toronto.
34. Mead, G. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35. Miceli, M. 1992. How to make someone feel guilt: Strategies of guilt inducement and their goals. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 22(1):81-104.
36. Moulin, B., H. Irandoust, M. Belanger, and G. Desordes. 2002. Explanation and argumentation capabilities: Towards the creation of more persuasive agents. Artificial Intelligence Review 17:169-222.
37. Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press.
38. Reed, C. and D. Long. 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), pages 1091-1097, Montreal, Canada.
39. Reiter, E., R. Robertson, and L. Osman. 2003a. Lesson from a failure: Generating tailored smoking cessation letters. Artificial Intelligence 144:41-58.
40. Reiter, E., S. Sripada, and R. Robertson, 2003b. Acquiring correct knowledge for natural language generation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 18:491-516.
41. Stock, O., M. Guerini, and M. Zancanaro. 2006. Interface design and persuasive intelligent user interfaces. In: The Foundations of Interaction Design, eds. S. Bagnara and G. Crampton Smith, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing Co. 193-207.
42. Stock, O. and M. Zancanaro. 2002. Intelligent interactive information presentation for cultural tourism. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Natural, Intelligent and Effective Interaction Multimodal Dialogue Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark.
43. Stock, O. and M. Zancanaro. in press. PEACH: Intelligent Interfaces for Museum Visits, Cognitive, Technologies Series. Berlin: Springer.
44. Strapparava, C. and M. Zancanaro, 2001. Firing rules in an object world. In Proceedings of AIIA'02 Demo Session, Bari, Italy.
45. Walton, D. N. and C. A. Reed. 2002. Argumentation schemes and defeasible inferences. In Proceedings of the ECAI 2002 Workshop on Computational Model of Natural Argument, Lyon, France.
46. Zukerman, I., R. McConachy, and K. Korb. 2000. Using argumentation strategies in automated argument generation. In Proceedings of the First International Natural Language Generation Conference, pages 55-62, Mitzpe Ramon, Israel.