Abstract
Previous logic-based handling of arguments has mainly focused on explanation or justification in presence of inconsistency. As a consequence, only one type of argument has been considered, namely the explanatory type; several argumentation frameworks have been proposed for generating and evaluating explanatory arguments. However, recent investigations of argument-based negotiation have emphasized other types of arguments, such as threats, rewards, tips, and warnings. In parallel, cognitive psychologists recently started studying the characteristics of these different types of arguments, and the conditions under which they have their desired effect. Bringing together these two lines of research, we present in this article some logical definitions as well as some criteria for evaluating each type of argument. Empirical findings from cognitive psychology validate these formal results.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–216 (2002)
Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., Maudet, N.: Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2000)
Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Handling threats, rewards and explanatory arguments in a unified setting. International Journal Of Intelligent Systems 20, 1195–1218 (2005)
Beller, S., Bender, A., Kuhnmünch, G.: Understanding conditional promises and threats. Thinking and Reasoning 11, 209–238 (2005)
Berrached, A., Beheshti, M., de Korvin, A., Aló, R.: Applying fuzzy relation equations to threat analysis. In: Proc. 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 2, pp. 50–54 (2002)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128, 203–235 (2001)
Bonnefon, J.F., Hilton, D.J.: Consequential conditionals: Invited and suppressed inferences from valued outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30, 28–37 (2004)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Evans, J.S.B.T.: The social and communicative function of conditional statements. Mind & Society 4, 97–113 (2005)
Evans, J.S.B.T., Twyman-Musgrove, J.: Conditional reasoning with inducements and advice. Cognition 16, B11–B16 (1998)
Fillenbaum, S.: How to do some things with IF. In: Cotton, J.W., Klatzky, R.L. (eds.) Semantic factors in cognition, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 169–231. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1978)
Guerini, M., Castelfranchi, C.: Promises and threats in persuasion. In: Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (2006)
Hamed, E., Graham, J., Elmaghraby, A.: Computer system threat evaluation. In: Proc. 10th International Conference on Intelligent Systems, Washington, pp. 23–26. International Society for Computers and Their Applications, Raleigh (2001)
Hamed, E., Graham, J., Elmaghraby, A.: Fuzzy threat evaluation in computer security. In: Proc. International Conference on Computers and Their Applications, San Francisco, pp. 389–393. International Society for Computers and Their Applications, Raleigh (2002)
Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence 104, 1–69 (1998)
López-Rousseau, A., Ketelaar, T.: “If.”: Satisficing algorithms for mapping conditional statements onto social domains. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 16, 807–823 (2004)
López-Rousseau, A., Ketelaar, T.: Juliet: If they do see thee, they will murder thee: A satisficing algorithm for pragmatic conditionals. Mind & Society 5, 71–77 (2006)
Ohm, E., Thompson, V.: Everyday reasoning with inducements and advice. Thinking and Reasoning 10, 241–272 (2004)
Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292 (1998)
Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Journal of Artificial Intelligence 57, 1–42 (1992)
Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N., Sierra, C.: Persuasive negotiation for autonomous agents: a rhetorical approach. In: IJCAI Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Arguments (2003)
Simari, G., Loui, R.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence 53, 125–157 (1992)
Thompson, V.A., Evans, J.S.B.T., Handley, S.J.: Persuading and dissuading by conditional argument. Journal of Memory and Language 53, 238–257 (2005)
Toulmin, S., Reike, R., Janik, A.: An introduction to reasoning. Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc., Basingstoke (1979)
Verbrugge, S., Dieussaert, K., Schaeken, W., Van Belle, W.: Promise is debt, threat another matter: The effect of credibility on the interpretation of conditional promises and threats. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 58, 106–112 (2004)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Amgoud, L., Bonnefon, JF., Prade, H. (2007). The Logical Handling of Threats, Rewards, Tips, and Warnings. In: Mellouli, K. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4724. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75256-1_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75256-1_23
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-75255-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-75256-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)