Expecting, understanding, relating, and interacting-older, middle-aged and younger adults' perspectives on breakdown situations in human-robot dialogues.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore how older, middle aged and younger adults perceive breakdown situations caused by lack of or inconsistent knowledge, sudden focus shifts, and conflicting intentions in dialogues between a human and a socially intelligent robot in a home environment, and how they perceive strategies to manage breakdown situations. Methods: Scenarios embedding dialogues on health-related topics were constructed based on activity-theoretical and argumentation frameworks. Different reasons for breakdown situations and strategies to handle these were embedded. The scenarios were recorded in a Wizard-of-Oz setup, with a human actor and a Nao robot. Twenty participants between 23 and 72 years of age viewed the recordings and participated in semi-structured interviews conducted remotely. Data were analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis. Results: Four themes relating to breakdown situations emerged: expecting, understanding, relating, and interacting. The themes span complex human activity at different complementary levels and provide further developed understanding of breakdown situations in human-robot interaction (HRI). Older and middle-aged adults emphasized emphatic behavior and adherence to social norms, while younger adults focused on functional aspects such as gaze, response time, and length of utterances. A hierarchical taxonomy of aspects relating to breakdown situations was formed, and design implications are provided, guiding future research. Conclusion: We conclude that a socially intelligent robot agent needs strategies to 1) construct and manage its understanding related to emotions of the human, social norms, knowledge, and motive on a higher level of meaningful human activity, 2) act accordingly, for instance, adhering to transparent social roles, and 3) resolve conflicting motives, and identify reasons to prevent and manage breakdown situations at different levels of collaborative activity. Furthermore, the novel methodology to frame the dynamics of human-robot dialogues in complex activities using Activity Theory and argumentation theory was instrumental in this work and will guide the future work on tailoring the robot's behavior.

Strengthening Critical Health Literacy for Health Information Appraisal: An Approach from Argumentation Theory.

The overload of health information has been a major challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health authorities play a primary role in managing this information. However, individuals have to apply critical health literacy to evaluate it. The objective of this paper is to identify targets for strengthening critical health literacy by focusing on the field of argumentation theory. This paper is based on the textual analysis of instances of health information through the lens of argumentation theory. The results show that critical health literacy benefits from: (1) understanding the concept of argument and the supporting reasons, (2) identifying the main argument schemes, and (3) the knowledge and use of the main critical questions to check the soundness of arguments. This study operationalizes the main aspects of critical health literacy. It calls for specific educational and training initiatives in the field. Moreover, it argues in favor of broadening the current educational curricula to empower individuals to engage in informed and quality decision making. Strengthening individuals' critical health literacy involves interventions to empower in argument evaluation. For this purpose, argumentation theory has analytical and normative frameworks that can be adapted within a lay-audience education concept.

The STAR-C Intelligent Coach: A Cross-Disciplinary Design Process of a Behavior Change Intervention in Primary Care.

A broad range of aspects are needed to be taken into consideration in the design and development of personalized coaching systems based on artificial intelligence methodologies. This research presents the initial phase of joining different professional and stakeholder perspectives on behavior change technologies into a flexible design proposal for a digital coaching system. The diversity and sometimes opposed views on content, behavior, purposes and context were managed using a structured argument-based design approach, which also feed into the behavior of the personalized system. Results include a set of personalization strategies that will be further elaborated with the target user group to manage sensitive issues such as ethics, social norms, privacy, motivation, autonomy and social relatedness.

Analysis of different preferences for the EU's regulatory options for endocrine disruptor identification criteria using argumentation theory.

What criteria are most suitable to identify endocrine disrupting substances (EDSs) for regulatory purposes in the EU? The results of the European Commission's public consultation, as part of the process to establish identification criteria for EDSs, show that different regulatory options are supported. Some respondents prefer an option including hazard characterization considerations, whereas others prefer an option that avoids these considerations and introduces several hazard-identification based weight-of-evidence categories. In this study, the argumentation underlying the different preferences for identification criteria are analyzed and compared using pragma-dialectical argumentation theory (PDAT). All responses of non-anonymous, national governments that submitted a response in English (n = 17) were included. Responses of other stakeholder organizations were included if a Google News search returned an opinionated presence in the media on the subject (n = 9). Five topical themes and 21 underlying issues were identified. The themes are 1) mechanistic understanding of EDSs, 2) regulatory considerations related to the identification of EDSs, 3) consistency with existing regulatory frameworks, and 4) evaluations of specific issues related to a category approach and 5) related to including potency. We argue that two overarching (implicit) 'advocacy coalitions' can be discerned, that adopted contrasting positions towards the identified themes and issues. Among these 'coalitions', there appears to be consensus about the necessity of having 'science-based' criteria, though different perspectives exist as to what the most accurate mechanistic understanding of EDSs entails. To move the discussion forward, we argue that a societal dialogue would be beneficial, where EDS science and regulation are discussed as interrelated themes.

Self-reported data for mental workload modelling in human-computer interaction and third-level education.

Mental workload (MWL) is an imprecise construct, with distinct definitions and no predominant measurement technique. It can be intuitively seen as the amount of mental activity devoted to a certain task over time. Several approaches have been proposed in the literature for the modelling and assessment of MWL. In this paper, data related to two sets of tasks performed by participants under different conditions is reported. This data was gathered from different sets of questionnaires answered by these participants. These questionnaires were aimed at assessing the features believed by domain experts to influence overall mental workload. In total, 872 records are reported, each representing the answers given by a user after performing a task. On the one hand, collected data might support machine learning researchers interested in using predictive analytics for the assessment of mental workload. On the other hand, data, if exploited by a set of rules/arguments (as in [3]), may serve as knowledge-bases for researchers in the field of knowledge-based systems and automated reasoning. Lastly, data might serve as a source of information for mental workload designers interested in investigating the features reported here for mental workload modelling. This article was co-submitted from a research journal "An empirical evaluation of the inferential capacity of defeasible argumentation, non-monotonic fuzzy reasoning and expert systems" [3]. The reader is referred to it for the interpretation of the data.

Towards Knowledge Maintenance in Scientific Digital Libraries with the Keystone Framework.

Scientific digital libraries speed dissemination of scientific publications, but also the propagation of invalid or unreliable knowledge. Although many papers with known validity problems are highly cited, no auditing process is currently available to determine whether a citing paper's findings fundamentally depend on invalid or unreliable knowledge. To address this, we introduce a new framework, the keystone framework, designed to identify when and how citing unreliable findings impacts a paper, using argumentation theory and citation context analysis. Through two pilot case studies, we demonstrate how the keystone framework can be applied to knowledge maintenance tasks for digital libraries, including addressing citations of a non-reproducible paper and identifying statements most needing validation in a high-impact paper. We identify roles for librarians, database maintainers, knowledgebase curators, and research software engineers in applying the framework to scientific digital libraries.

O papel da argumentação em processos deliberativos nas instâncias de controle social do Sistema Único de Saúde / Role of argumentation in deliberative processes in social control instances of the Brazilian National Health System / El papel de la argumentación en procesos deliberativos en las instancias de control social del Sistema Brasileño de Salud

Este artigo tem como objetivo discutir teoricamente o papel da argumentação nos processos deliberativos que se dão no interior das instâncias colegiadas de controle social do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Baseia-se em uma leitura dos processos de participação social em saúde a partir da Teoria do Agir Comunicativo e localiza a deliberação pública dentro de um arcabouço dialógico de oferecer e receber razões para justificar posições a partir de argumentos. Defende-se que a argumentação é constitutiva da deliberação na medida em que a qualidade da primeira influencia a qualidade da segunda. Apresentam-se duas grandes correntes contemporâneas da teoria da argumentação, a Pragma-Dialética e a Nova Retórica. Defende-se uma combinação das duas abordagens como ferramenta para a compreensão dos determinantes comunicativos da deliberação e, consequentemente, para melhor entendimento das escolhas feitas no processo de formulação e implantação de políticas públicas de saúde.(AU)

This article aims at theoretically discussing the role of argumentation in deliberative processes that occur in social control board instances of the Brazilian National Health System (SUS). Social health participation processes were analyzed based on the Theory of Communicative Action. This article considers public deliberation under a dialogic framework of providing and receiving reasons to justify opinions based on arguments. We support that argumentation is part of deliberation, since the quality of the former influences the quality of the latter. Two great contemporary currents of the Argumentation Theory are presented: Pragma-Dialectics and New Rhetoric. We argue that a combination of both approaches helps understand deliberation's communicative determinants and consequently further understand the choices made in the process of creation and implementation of public health policies.(AU)

El objetivo de este artículo es discutir teóricamente el papel de la argumentación en los procesos deliberativos que se realizan en el interior de las instancias colegiadas de control social del Sitema Brasileño de Salud (SUS). Se basa en una lectura de los procesos de participación social en salud a partir de la Teoría del Actuar Comunicativo y localiza la deliberación pública dentro de una estructura dialógica de ofrecer y recibir razones para justificar posiciones a partir de argumentos. Se defiende que la argumentación es constitutiva de la deliberación en la medida en que la calidad de la primera influye sobre la calidad de la segunda. Se presentan dos grandes corrientes contemporáneas de la teoría de la argumentación, la Pragma-dialéctica y la Nueva Retórica. Se defiende una combinación de los dos abordajes como herramienta para la comprensión de los determinantes comunicativos de la deliberación y, consecuentemente, para un mejor entendimiento de las elecciones realizadas en el proceso de formulación e implantación de políticas públicas de salud.(AU)

Uso público da razão e argumentação: análise dos debates sobre o Programa Mais Médicos / Public use of reason and argumentation: analysis of discussions about the More Doctors Program / Uso público de la razón y de la argumentación: análisis de los debates sobre el Programa Más Médicos

Este estudo tem como objetivos identificar os principais argumentos utilizados durante as discussões públicas sobre o Programa Mais Médicos e analisar a estrutura das argumentações e sua adequação às regras de uma discussão crítica. São analisados debates veiculados na televisão e na internet envolvendo agentes públicos e da sociedade civil. A análise foi realizada a partir da abordagem pragma-dialética de Van Eemeren e Grootendorst e seu modelo de discussão crítica. Em todos os debates são observadas falácias nas argumentações, o que dificulta o avanço no sentido de se chegar à resolução das diferenças de opiniões. Esses entraves no diálogo acabam por dificultar também a resolução de problemas concretos que poderia fazer avançar o Programa Mais Médicos e, assim, melhorar as condições de acesso à saúde da população.

The objective of this study was to identify the main arguments used during public discussions of the More Doctors Program and analyze the structure of the arguments and their compliance with the rules for critical discussions. Discussions broadcast on television and the Internet involving public and civil society actors were examined. The analysis was based on the pragmadialectical approach and critical discussion model developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst. In all the discussions, fallacies in the arguments can be detected, which hinders resolving differences of opinion. These impediments to dialogue also make it difficult to solve concrete problems that could help move the More Doctors Program forward and improve the access of the population to health care.

El objetivo de este estudio es identificar los principales argumentos utilizados durante las discusiones públicas sobre el Programa Más Médicos y analizar la estructura de las argumentaciones y su adecuación a las reglas de una discusión crítica. Se analizan debates exhibidos en la televisión y en internet, envolviendo a agentes públicos y de la sociedad civil. El análisis se realizó a partir del abordaje pragma-dialéctico de Van Eemeren y Grootendorst y su modelo de discusión crítica. En todos los debates se observan falacias en las argumentaciones, lo que dificulta el avance en el sentido de llegar a la resolución de las diferencias de opinión. Esos obstáculos en el diálogo terminan dificultando también la resolución de problemas concretos que podría hacer que avanzara el Programa Más Médicos y de esa forma mejorar las condiciones de acceso a la salud de la población.

Análise do discurso argumentativo na coordenação de um Serviço de Atendimento Móvel de Urgência / Analysis of argumentative discourse in coordinating a mobile emergency care service / Análisis del discurso argumentativo en la coordinación de un Servicio de Atención Móvil de Urgencia

O artigo analisa o uso do discurso argumentativo na coordenação de um serviço regional de atendimento móvel de urgências, a partir de um quadro teórico baseado na Teoria da Ação Comunicativa e na Nova Retórica. O material empírico provém de entrevistas e observação direta junto ao colegiado gestor do serviço, localizado na Região Metropolitana II do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Os resultados mostram que a construção de uma identidade regional baseada na solidariedade tornou possível a coordenação de ações em um contexto organizacional complexo. Tiveram papel primordial certos esquemas argumentativos, como os argumentos de reciprocidade, os que apelam para relações matemáticas e para definições, e os argumentos pragmáticos. A análise das argumentações pressupõe uma racionalidade que enfoca os procedimentos do raciocínio e da fundamentação dos atos deliberativos, sendo útil para explorar processos de tomada de decisão e de coordenação em saúde...

This paper analyzes the use of argumentative discourse in coordinating a regional mobile emergency care service, from a theoretical framework based on the theory of communicative action and on new rhetoric. Empirical data were obtained from interviews and direct observation of the administrative coordinators of the service, which was located in the Metropolitan Region II of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The results showed that construction of a regional identity based on solidarity made it possible to coordinate actions in a complex organizational context. Certain argumentative schemes had a fundamental role in this, such as arguments of reciprocity, arguments appealing to mathematical relationships and definitions and pragmatic arguments. The analysis on the arguments presupposes rationality that focuses on procedures of reasoning and justification of deliberative acts. This is useful for exploring decision-making and healthcare coordination processes...

El artículo analiza el uso del discurso argumentativo en la coordinación de un servicio regional de atención móvil de urgencias, a partir de un cuadro teórico basado en la Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa y en la nueva Retórica. El material empírico proveniente de entrevistas y observación directa con el colegio gestor del servicio, localizado en la Región Metropolitana II de Río de Janeiro, Brasil. Los resultados muestran que la construcción de una identidad regional basada en la solidaridad hizo posible la coordinación de acciones en un contexto organizativo complejo. Tuvieron un papel primordial determinados esquemas argumentativos, como los argumentos de reciprocidad, los que apelan para relaciones matemáticas y para definiciones y los argumentos pragmáticos. El análisis de las argumentaciones presupone una racionalidad que enfoca los procedimientos de raciocinio y de la fundamentación de los actos deliberativos, siendo útil para explorar procesos de toma de decisión y de coordinación en salud...

Toward an experimental account of argumentation: the case of the slippery slope and the ad hominem arguments.

Argumentation is a crucial component of our lives. Although in the absence of rational debate our legal, political, and scientific systems would not be possible, there is still no integrated area of research on the psychology of argumentation. Furthermore, classical theories of argumentation are normative (i.e., the acceptability of an argument is determined by a set of norms or logical rules), which sometimes creates a dissociation between the theories and people's behavior. We think the current challenge for psychology is to bring together the cognitive and normative accounts of argumentation. In this article, we exemplify this point by analyzing two cases of argumentative structures experimentally studied in the context of cognitive psychology. Specifically, we focus on the slippery slope argument and the ad hominem argument under the frameworks of Bayesian and pragma-dialectics approaches, respectively. We think employing more descriptive and experimental accounts of argumentation would help Psychology to bring closer the cognitive and normative accounts of argumentation with the final goal of establishing an integrated area of research on the psychology of argumentation.

Rational versus unreasonable persuasion in doctor-patient communication: a normative account.

OBJECTIVE: Persuasion plays a critical role in doctor-patient communication. The relevant literature tends to equate persuasion to manipulation as a suboptimal form of interaction. The objective of this paper is to distinguish among different types of persuasion processes and to highlight when their use can be beneficial or risky from the perspective of the patient's autonomy. METHODS: This paper presents a conceptual analysis of persuasion based on the analytical and normative frameworks of argumentation theory. RESULTS: Persuasion is a generic term that refers to at least four main forms of persuasion: rational persuasion, unintentional unreasonable persuasion, intentional (without deception) unreasonable persuasion and intentional (with deception) unreasonable persuasion (i.e., manipulation). CONCLUSION: Rational persuasion can be a process of value for the medical encounter. The other forms of persuasion can negatively impact patients' decision making. They are suboptimal for different reasons that are partly due to the quality of communication, and partly due to ethics of the medical conduct. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This paper offers a basis for developing training opportunities that foster deeper understanding of different forms and uses of persuasion. Also, it can inspire the development of educational material for patients targeted to the enhancement of their critical health literacy.

'What matters to Andrew'. The problem of premissary relevance in automated health advisors. Insights from pragma-dialectics.

OBJECTIVE: To influence health behavior, communication has to be relevant on an individual level and, thus, fulfill the requirement of premissary relevance. This paper attempts to enrich the design of automated health advisors by, first, reviewing main solutions to the challenge of premissary relevance found in the literature and, second, highlighting the value in this field of the theory of argumentation known as pragma-dialectics. METHODS: A conceptual paper grounded in persuasion research and argumentation theory. RESULTS: Automated health advisors enable argumentative exchanges with users. But there is a need to design these systems as to make them work in an audience-centered perspective. The theory of pragma-dialectics can be used to analyze the factors that favor or hinder the agreement of users to engage in certain health behaviors, and to identify argumentation strategies targeted to behavior change. CONCLUSION: Pragma-dialectics can be used to enhance the design of automated health advisors as it operationalizes the dialogical nature of the reasoning process that can influence health behavior. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Premissary relevance is a challenge of communication for health promotion at large that can be promisingly addressed through synergies among persuasion research, argumentation theory and Artificial Intelligence.

Using Argumentation Theory to Identify the Challenges of Shared Decision-Making when the Doctor and the Patient have a Difference of Opinion.

ABSTRACT: This paper aims to identify the challenges in the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) when the doctor and the patient have a difference of opinion. It analyses the preconditions of the resolution of this difference of opinion by using an analytical and normative framework known in the field of argumentation theory as the ideal model of critical discussion. This analysis highlights the communication skills and attitudes that both doctors and patients must apply in a dispute resolution-oriented communication. Questions arise over the methods of empowerment of doctors and patients in these skills and attitudes as the preconditions of SDM. Overall, the paper highlights aspects in which research is needed to design appropriate programmes of training, education and support in order to equip doctors and patients with the means to successfully engage in shared decision-making. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: the authors would like to thank the Swiss National Science Foundation for funding this project (project number: PDFMP1_132523. Enhancing doctor-patient argumentation through the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Insights from a study in the field of chronic pain).

Un modelo lógico-formal para el estudio de los argumentos emocionales en los procesos de construcción de acuerdos / Um modelo lógico-formal para o estudo dos argumentos emocionais nos processos de construção de acordos / A logical-formal model for the study of emotional arguments in negotiation processes

Los argumentos son parte de un proceso comunicativo con el cual se trata de incidir en la acción de otros. Gilbert (1994) identifica cuatro modos de argumentación: el modo lógico, el modo emocional, el modo visceral y el modo kisceral. Siguiendo la línea de investigación en psicología computacional marcada por Ortony, Clore y Collins (1988) y el modelo de resolución de conflictos usando negociaciones basadas en argumentos propuesto por Jung y Tambe (2001), este trabajo presenta un modelo lógico-formal para el estudio de un modo concreto de argumentos emocionales dentro del contexto de formación de consensos enmarcado en un proceso de negociación/coordinación. Se discuten sus implicaciones en los modelos cognitivos emocionales basados en el proceso de apreciación/evaluación de la emoción.

Arguments are part of a communicative process through which people try to influence the actions of others. Gilbert (1994) identifies four modes of argumentation: (a) logical, (b) emotional, (c) visceral, and (d) kisceral. Following the line of research in computational psychology proposed by Ortony, Clore and Collins (1988), and the model of conflict resolution using argumentation-based negotiations proposed by Jung and Tambe (2001), this paper presents a logical-formal model for studying of emotional arguments within the context of consensus building framed in negotiation and coordination processes.

Os argumentos são parte de um processo comunicativo com o qual se trata de incidir na ação de outros. Gilbert (1994) identifica quatro modos de argumentação: o modo lógico, o modo emocional, o modo visceral e o modo kisceral. Seguindo a linha de investigação em psicologia computacional definida por Ortony, Clore y Collins (1988) e o modelo de resolução de conflitos usando negociações baseadas nos argumentos propostos por Jung e Tambe (2001), este trabalho apresenta um modelo lógico-formal para o estudo de um modo concreto de argumentos emocionais dentro do contexto de formação de consensos demarcado em um processo de negociação /coordenação. Discutem-se suas implicações nos modelos cognitivos emocionais baseados no processo de apreciação /avaliação da emoção.