Arguing about Emotion

  • Martyn Lloyd-Kelly
  • Adam Wyner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7138)


Emotions are commonly thought to be beyond rational analysis. In this paper, we develop the position that emotions can be the objects of argumentation and used as terms in emotional argumentation schemes. Thus, we can argue about whether or not, according to normative standards and available evidence, it is plausible that an individual had a particular emotion. This is particularly salient in legal cases, where decisions can depend on explicit arguments about emotional states.


legal reasoning argumentation schemes emotions 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.: Action-based alternating transition systems for arguments about action. In: AAAI 2007: Proceedings of the 22nd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 24–29. AAAI Press (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., Cartwright, D., Wyner, A.: Semantic models for policy deliberation. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2011), Pittsburgh, PA, USA, pp. 81–90 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K.D., DeWall, C.N., Zhang, L.: How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review 11, 167–203 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ben-Ze’ev, A.: Emotions and argumentation. Informal Logic 17, 1–11 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon, T.: Knowledge representation: Approach to Artificial Intelligence. Academic Press (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bex, F.: Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence: A Formal Hybrid Theory. Springer, Dordrecht (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chakraborti, N., Garland, J.: Hate Crime: Impact, Causes and Responses. Sage (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elllott, C., Ortony, A.: Point of view: Reasoning about the concerns of others. In: Proceedings of the Fourteen Annual Conference of Cognitive Science, pp. 809–814. Cognitive Science Society, Bloomingto (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frijda, N.H.: The Emotions. Cambridge University Press (1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gordon, T., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171, 875–896 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Izard, C.E., Ackerman, B.P.: Motivational, organizational, and regulatory functions of discrete emotions. In: Handbook of Emotion, pp. 253–264. Guilford, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kahan, D.: The anatomy of disgust in criminal law. Michigan Law Review 96(6) (1998); (112), 1621–1657 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lakoff, G., Johnson, M.: Philosoph In The Flesh: the Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manolescu, B.: A normative pragmatic perspective on appealing to emotions in argumentation. Argumentation 20, 327–343 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Margulies, H.S.L. (ed.): Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2011). LexisNexis Matthew Bender (2010),
  17. 17.
    Micheli, R.: Emotions as objects of argumentative constructions. Argumentation 24, 1–17 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nawwab, F.S., Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.: Exploring the role of emotions in rational decision making. In: Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Simari, G. (eds.) Proceedings of COMMA 2010 Computational Models of Argument. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 216, pp. 367–378. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ortony, A., Clore, G., Collins, A.: The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge University Press (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structure arguments. Argument and Computation 1(2), 93–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Steunebrink, B., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.J.: A logic of emotions for intelligent agents. In: Holte, R., Howe, A. (eds.) Proceedings of AAAI-2007, pp. 142–147. AAAI Press, Vancouver (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steunebrink, B., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.J.: A formal model of emotions: Integrating qualitative and quantitative aspects. In: Mali, G., Spyropoulos, C., Fakotakis, N., Avouris, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2008), pp. 256–260. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steunebrink, B.: The Logical Structure of Emotions. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University, The Netherlands (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review 90(4), 293–315 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Velásquez, J.: When robots weep: Emotional memories and decision-making. In: Proceedings of American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 70–75 (1998)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walton, D.: The Place of Emotion in Argument. Pennsylvania State University Press (1992)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walton, D.: A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. The University of Alabama Press (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wyner, A., Bench-Capon, T., Atkinson, K.: Formalising argumentation about legal cases. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2011), Pittsburgh, PA, USA, pp. 1–10 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martyn Lloyd-Kelly
    • 1
  • Adam Wyner
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations