This Article 
 Bibliographic References 
 Add to: 
Portia: A User-Adapted Persuasion System in the Healthy-Eating Domain
November/December 2007 (vol. 22 no. 6)
pp. 42-51
Irene Mazzotta, University of Bari
Fiorella de Rosis, University of Bari
Valeria Carofiglio, University of Bari
Eating habits are influenced by emotional factors. Therefore, persuasion to change bad habits should integrate both rational and emotional strategies appropriately. This article describes a prototype system aimed at simulating user-adapted persuasion dialogues in the healthy-eating domain. They describe how they collected and analyzed a corpus of messages in the domain and compared the persuasion strength of alternative strategies in this corpus. Their prototype system reasons about the participant's beliefs to select an appropriate strategy for a given context, and translates the selected strategy into a natural-language, rhetorically coherent text. This article is part of a special issue on argumentation technology.

1. D.N. Walton, The Place of Emotion in Argument, Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1992.
2. D.N. Walton, "What Is Reasoning? What Is an Argument?" J. Philosophy, vol. 87, no. 8, Aug. 1990, pp. 399–419.
3. M. Miceli, F. de Rosis, and I. Poggi, "Emotional and Nonemotional Persuasion," Int'l J. Applied Artificial Intelligence, vol. 20, no. 10, Nov. 2006, pp. 849–879.
4. S. Toulmin, The Use of Arguments, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1958.
5. I.P. Levin, S.L. Schneider, and G.J. Gaeth, "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, vol. 76, Nov. 1998, pp. 149–188.
6. I. Mazzotta and F. de Rosis, Artifices for Persuading to Improve Eating Habits, AAAI Spring Symp. Argumentation for Consumers of Health Care, tech. report SS-06-01,AAAI Press, Mar. 2006, pp. 76–85.
7. D.J. O'Keefe, Persuasion: Theory and Research, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, 2002.
8. J. Pearl, Probabilistic Reasoning in Expert Systems: Networks of Plausible Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.
9. P.R. Cohen and H.J. Levesque, "Intention Is Choice with Commitment," Artificial Intelligence, vol. 42, Mar. 1990, pp. 213–261.
10. W.C. Mann, C.M. Matthiesen, and S.A. Thompson, Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis, research report ISI/RR-89-242, Univ. of Southern Calif. Information Sciences Inst., Nov. 1989, pp. 89–242.
11. C. Reed, "Representing and Applying Knowledge for Argumentation in a Social Context," AI &Society, vol. 11, nos. 1–2, 1997, pp. 138–154.
12. S. Das, "Logic of Probabilistic Arguments," Working Notes 2nd Int'l Workshop Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 02), 2002, pp. 9–18.
13. N. Green, "Towards an Empirical Model of Argumentation in Medical Genetics," IJCAI2003 Workshop Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 03), 2003, pp. 39–44.
14. I. Zukerman et al., "Recognizing Intentions from Rejoinders in a Bayesian Interactive Argumentation System," Proc. System Pacific Rim Int'l Conf. Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI00), 2000, pp. 241–251.

Index Terms:
user-centered design, natural language user interface, probabilistic reasoning, healthcare application
Irene Mazzotta, Fiorella de Rosis, Valeria Carofiglio, "Portia: A User-Adapted Persuasion System in the Healthy-Eating Domain," IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 42-51, Nov.-Dec. 2007, doi:10.1109/MIS.2007.115
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.