Emotion-Driven Narrative Generation

  • Brian O’NeillEmail author
  • Mark Riedl
Part of the Socio-Affective Computing book series (SAC, volume 4)


While a number of systems have been developed that can generate stories, the challenge of generating stories that elicit emotions from human audiences remains an open problem. With the development of models of emotion, it would be possible to use these models as means of evaluating stories for their emotional content. In this chapter, we discuss Dramatis, a model of suspense. This model measures the level of suspense in a story by attempting to determine the best method for the protagonist to avoid a negative outcome. We discuss the possibilities for Dramatis and other emotion models for improving intelligent generation of narratives.


  1. 1.
    Abbott HP (2008) The Cambridge introduction to narrative. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aristotle (1992) The poetics. Prometheus Books, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bae B, Young RM (2008) A use of flashback and foreshadowing for surprise arousal in narrative using a plan-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on interactive digital storytelling. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 156–167Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barber H, Kudenko D (2008) Generation of dilemma-based interactive narratives with a changeable story goal. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on intelligent technologies for interactive entertainment. ICST, Brussels, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonet B, Geffner H (2001) Planning as heuristic search. Artif Intell 129:5–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Branigan E (1992) Narrative comprehension and film. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheong Y (2007) A computational model of narrative generation for suspense. PhD dissertation, North Carolina State University, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Comisky P, Bryant J (1982) Factors involved in generating suspense. Hum Commun Res 9:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cullingford RE (1981) SAM and micro SAM. In: Schank R, Riesbeck CK (eds) Inside computer understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fikes RE, Nilsson NJ (1971) STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artif Intell 2:189–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freytag G (1968) The technique of the drama: an exposition of dramatic composition and art. Johnston Reprint CorporationGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gerrig RJ, Bernardo ABI (1994) Readers as problem-solvers in the experience of suspense. Poetics 22:459–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gervás P, Díaz-Agudo B, Peinado F, Hervás R (2005) Story plot generation based on CBR. Knowl-Based Syst 18:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graesser AC, Singer M, Trabasso T (1994) Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychol Rev 101:371–395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    MacLeod C, Campbell L (1992) Memory accessibility and probability judgements: an experimental evaluation of the availability heuristic. J Personal Soc Psychol 63:890–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mateas M (2002) Interactive drama, art and artificial intelligence. PhD dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meehan J (1981) TALE-SPIN. In: Schank RC, Riesbeck CK (eds) Inside computer understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Niehaus J (2009) Cognitive models of discourse comprehension for narrative generation. PhD dissertation, North Carolina State University, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Neill B (2013) A computational model of suspense for the augmentation of intelligent story generation. PhD dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Neill B, Riedl M (2014) Dramatis: a computational model of suspense. In: Proceedings of the twenty-eighth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-14). AAAI, Menlo Park, pp 944–950Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ortony A, Clore GL, Collins A (1988) The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pérez y Pérez R, Sharples M (2001) MEXICA: a computational model of a cognitive account of creative writing. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 13:119–139Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Porteous J, Cavazza M (2009) Controlling narrative generation with planning trajectories. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on interactive digital storytelling. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 234–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Porteous J, Teutenberg J, Pizzi D, Cavazza M (2011) Visual programming of plan dynamics using constraints and landmarks. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on automated planning and scheduling. AAAI, Menlo Park, pp 186–193Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prince G (2003) Dictionary of narratology. University of Nebraska Press, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Riedl MO, Bulitko V (2013) Interactive narrative: an intelligent systems approach. AI Mag 34:67–77Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Riedl MO, Young RM (2010) Narrative planning: balancing plot and character. J Artif Intell Res 39:217–268Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schank RC, Abelson RP (1977) Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tan ES (1996) Emotion and the structure of narrative film: film as an emotion machine. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Turner SR (1993) Minstrel: a computer model of creativity and storytelling. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ware SG, Young RM (2014) Glaive: a state-space narrative planner supporting intentionality and conflict. In: Proceedings of the 10th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence and interactive digital entertainment. AAAI, Menlo ParkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yannakakis GN, Togelius J (2011) Experience-driven procedural content generation. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 2:147–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zillman D (1996) The psychology of suspense in dramatic exposition. In: Vorderer P, Wulff HJ, Friedrichsen M (eds) Suspense: conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical explorations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 199–231Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zwaan RA, Langston MC, Graesser AC (1995) The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: an event-indexing model. Psychol Sci 6:292–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information TechnologyWestern New England UniversitySpringfieldUSA
  2. 2.School of Interactive ComputingGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations