Imaginal Agents

  • David G. Schwartz
  • Dov Te’eni


There is a need for an integrative approach to the design of agent architectures that considers both issues of individual agency and agent interaction. Image Theory, a well-established framework for analyzing and understanding the activities of decision-makers (DM), is applied to provide conceptual guidelines for establishing inter-agent communication; independent agent deliberation, and the evolution or modification of individual agent behavior. This paper presents Image Theory and examines its implications on the design of individual agents and societies of agents. After presenting the relevant aspects of Image Theory, we suggest a number of agent design principles derived from the theory, as well as some practical implications of these principles.


Image Theory Adoption Decision Agent Interaction Interagent Communication Computer Support Cooperative Work 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Argyris, C. and D. Schon. Organizational Learning, Addison-Wesley (1978).Google Scholar
  2. Beach, R. and T. Mitchell, “Cost Benefit Theory of Decision Making,” Academy of Management Review (1978).Google Scholar
  3. Beach, R. and T. Mitchell, “Image Theory,” Academy of Management Review (1987).Google Scholar
  4. Boland, R.J., R. Tenkasi, and D. Te’eni, “Richness of Communication in Interdependent Decision Making,” Organizational Science (1994).Google Scholar
  5. Boland, R.J., D.G. Schwartz, R. Tenkasi, A. Maheshwari, and D. Te’eni, “Sharing Perspectives in Distributed Decision Making,” Proceedings of CSCW-92, Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, ACM Press (Nov. 1992).Google Scholar
  6. Gasser, L. “Social Concepts of Knowledge and Action: DAI foundations and open systems semantics,” Artificial Intelligence 47, 1–3 (January 1991): 107–138.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Georgeff, M.P. and A. L. Lansky, “Reactive reasoning and planning,” Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-87), Seattle, WA. (1987):677–682Google Scholar
  8. Gibson, J.L., J.M. Ivancevich, and J H. Donnelly Jr. Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Processes, Dallas: Business Publications (1979).Google Scholar
  9. Hewitt, C. “Open Information Systems Semantics for Distributed Artificial Intelligence,” Artificial Intelligence 47, 1–3 (January 1991):79–106.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Schwartz D.G. Cooperating Heterogeneous Systems, Boston: Kluwer (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Star, S. L. “The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving,” in L. Gasser and M. Huhns (eds.), Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Volume II, Morgan-Kaufmann. (1989):37–54.Google Scholar
  12. Sycara, K P. and C.M. Lewis. “Cooperation of Heterogeneous Agents Through the Formation of Shared Mental Models” Workshop in Cooperation Among Heterogeneous Intelligent Agents (July 1991).Google Scholar
  13. Werner, E. “Cooperating Agents: A Unified Theory of Communication and Social Structure,” in L. Gasser and M. Huhns (eds.), Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Volume II, Morgan-Kaufmann (1989): 1–36.Google Scholar
  14. Woolridge, M. and N.R. Jennings, “Intelligent Agents: Theory and Practice,” Knowledge Engineering Review 10, 2 (June 1995).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • David G. Schwartz
    • 1
  • Dov Te’eni
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Business AdministrationBar-Ilan UniversityRamat-GanIsrael

Personalised recommendations