Towards a Dual Process Cognitive Model for Argument Evaluation

  • Pierre BisquertEmail author
  • Madalina Croitoru
  • Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9310)


In this paper we are interested in the computational and formal analysis of the persuasive impact that an argument can produce on a human agent. We propose a dual process cognitive computational model based on the highly influential work of Kahneman and investigate its reasoning mechanisms in the context of argument evaluation. This formal model is a first attempt to take a greater account of human reasoning and is a first step to a better understanding of persuasion processes as well as human argumentative strategies, which is crucial in collective decision making domain.


Cognitive computational models Dual process reasoning Persuasion Argument 


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: An argumentation-based semantics for agent communication languages. In: ECAI 2002, pp. 38–42. IOS Press (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beevers, C.G.: Cognitive vulnerability to depression: a dual process model. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 25(7), 975–1002 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benferhat, S., Dupin de Saint Cyr - Bannay, F.: Contextual handling of conditional knowledge. In: Proceedings of IPMU 1996, Granada, Spain, July 1996Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blair, J.A., Johnson, R.H.: Informal logic: an overview. Informal Logic 20(2), 93–108 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burrows, R., Johnson, H., Johnson, P.: Developing an online social media system to influence pro-environmental behaviour based on user values. In: ICPT (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaiken, S.: The heuristic model of persuasion. In: Social influence: The Ontario Symposium, vol. 5, pp. 3–37 (1987)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cialdini, R.: Influence: Science and Practice. Allyn and Bacon, Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clements, C.S.: Perception and persuasion in legal argumentation: using informal fallacies and cognitive biases to win the war of words. BYU Law Rev. 2013(2), 319 (2013)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., Mamede, S.: Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing. BMJ Qual. Saf. 22(Suppl 2), 58–64 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Epstein, S.: Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am. Psychol. 49(8), 709–724 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Evans, J.S.B.T., Curtis-Holmes, J.: Rapid responding increases belief bias: evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Think. Reasoning 11(4), 382–389 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Forget, A., Chiasson, S., van Oorschot, P.C., Biddle, R.: Persuasion for stronger passwords: motivation and pilot study. In: Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Hasle, P., Harjumaa, M., Segerståhl, K., Øhrstrøm, P. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5033, pp. 140–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamblin, C.: Fallacies. University paperback, Methuen (1970)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hélie, S., Sun, R.: Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: a unified theory and a connectionist model. Psychol. Rev. 117(3), 994–1024 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hornikx, J., Hahn, U.: Reasoning and argumentation: towards an integrated psychology of argumentation. Think. Reasoning 18(3), 225–243 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Korb, K.B., Mcconachy, R., Zukerman, I.: A cognitive model of argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 400–405 (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., Magidor, M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artif. Intell. 44, 167–207 (1990)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Larue, O., Poirier, P., Nkambou, R.: Emotional emergence in a symbolic dynamical architecture. In: Chella, A., Pirrone, R., Sorbello, R., Jóhannsdóttir, K.R. (eds.) Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures 2012. AISC, vol. 196, pp. 199–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lehto, T., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Explaining and predicting perceived effectiveness and use continuance intention of a behaviour change support system for weight loss. Behav. Inf. Technol. 34(2), 176–189 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mackenzie, J.: Four dialogue systems. Stud. Logica 49(4), 567–583 (1990)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 17(6), 1223–1235 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (1969)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petty, R., Cacioppo, J.: The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19(C), 123–205 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(2), 163–188 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rahwan, I., Amgoud, L.: An argumentation based approach for practical reasoning. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pp. 347–354 (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sloman, S.A.: The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 119(1), 3–22 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Strannegård, C., von Haugwitz, R., Wessberg, J., Balkenius, C.: A cognitive architecture based on dual process theory. In: Kühnberger, K.-U., Rudolph, S., Wang, P. (eds.) AGI 2013. LNCS, vol. 7999, pp. 140–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Touretzky, D.: Implicit ordering of defaults in inheritance systems. In: Proceedings of AAAI 1984. University of Texas at Austin (1984)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Knippenberg, D.: Social identity and persuasion: reconsidering the role of group membership. In: Social Identity and Social Cognition, vol. XVII, pp. 315–331 (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Walton, D.: Logical Dialogue: Games and Fallacies. University Press of America, Lanham (1984)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wood, W.: Attitude change: persuasion and social influence. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51(1), 539–570 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zaller, J.: The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge Studies in Political Psychology Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Bisquert
    • 1
    Email author
  • Madalina Croitoru
    • 2
  • Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr
    • 3
  1. 1.INRAMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.University MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.IRITToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations