Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction: From Cognitive Modeling to Social Simulation by RON SUN (edt)

Author:RON SUN (edt)
Language: spa
Format: mobi, pdf
Tags: TEAM DDU
Published: 2006-01-21T10:07:08+00:00

226

Jonathan Gratch, Wenji Mao, and Stacy Marsella

figure 9.3. An example causal interpretation.

Each event is appraised in terms of several appraisal variables by domain-independent functions that examine the syntactic structure of the causal interpretation:

r Perspective: from whose perspective is the event judged r Desirability: what is the utility of the event if it comes to pass, from the perspective taken (i.e., does it causally advance or inhibit a state of some utility)

r Likelihood: how probable is the outcome of the event

r Causal attribution: who deserves credit or blame (i.e., what entity performed the action leading to the desirable/undesirable outcome) r Temporal status: is this past, present, or future

r Controllability: can the outcome be altered by actions under control of the agent whose perspective is taken

r Changeability: can the outcome be altered by some other causal agent Each appraised event is mapped into an emotion instance of some type and intensity, following the scheme proposed by Ortony, Clore, and Collins (1988). A simple activation-based focus of attention model computes a current emotional state based on most-recently accessed emotion instances.

Coping determines how one responds to the appraised significance of events. Coping strategies are proposed to maintain desirable or overturn undesirable in-focus emotion instances. Coping strategies essentially work in the reverse direction of appraisal, identifying the precursors of emotion

Modeling Social Emotions and Social Attributions 227

in the causal interpretation that should be maintained or altered (e.g., beliefs, desires, intentions, expectations). Strategies include: r Action: select an action for execution

r Planning: form an intention to perform some act (the planner uses such intentions to drive its plan generation)

r Seek instrumental support: ask someone who is in control of an outcome for help

r Procrastination: wait for an external event to change the current circumstances

r Positive reinterpretation: increase utility of positive side-effect of an act with a negative outcome

r Resignation: drop a threatened intention

r Denial: lower the probability of a pending undesirable outcome r Mental disengagement: lower utility of desired state

r Shift blame: shift responsibility for an action toward some other agent r Seek/suppress information: form a positive or negative intention to monitor some pending or unknown state

Strategies give input to the cognitive processes that actually execute these directives. For example, planful coping will generate an intention to perform the “join club” action, which in turn leads to the planning system to generate and execute a valid plan to accomplish this act. Alternatively, coping strategies might abandon the goal, lower the goal’s importance, or re-assess who is to blame.

Not every strategy applies to a given stressor (e.g., an agent cannot engage in problem-directed coping if he or she is unaware of an action that has an impact on the situation), however, multiple strategies can apply.

EMA proposes these in parallel but adopts strategies sequentially. EMA adopts a small set of search control rules to resolve ties. In particular, the model prefers problem-directed strategies if control is appraised as high (take action, plan, seek information), procrastination if changeability is high, and emotion-focus strategies if control and changeability is low.

In developing

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.