Explaining preferences with argument positions
نویسندگان
چکیده
When deciding what to do agents must choose among alternative actions and different agents may make different choices according to what they wish to achieve in the light of their preferences and values. It cannot be assumed, however, that agents have a conscious understanding of their value preferences independent of the reasoning situations in which they engage. In this paper we consider an extension to a generic framework for reasoning about arguments justifying actions in terms of values in which the preferences amongst values emerge from the reasoning process.
منابع مشابه
Explaining Heterogeneity in Risk Preferences Using a Finite Mixture Model
This paper studies the effect of the space (distance) between lotteries' outcomes on risk-taking behavior and the shape of estimated utility and probability weighting functions. Previously investigated experimental data shows a significant space effect in the gain domain. As compared to low spaced lotteries, high spaced lotteries are associated with higher risk aversion for high probabilities o...
متن کاملTailoring Evaluative Arguments to User’s Preferences
Computer systems that serve as personal assistants, advisors, or sales assistants frequently need to argue evaluations of domain entities. Argumentation theory shows that to argue an evaluation convincingly requires to base the evaluation on the hearer’s values and preferences. In this paper we propose a framework for tailoring an evaluative argument about an entity when user’s preferences are ...
متن کاملVoting with preferences over margins of victory
This paper analyzes a two-alternative voting model with the distinctive feature that voters have preferences over margins of victory. We study voting contests with a finite as well as an infinite number of voters, and with and without mandatory voting. The main result of the paper is the existence and characterization of a unique equilibrium outcome in all those situations. At equilibrium, vote...
متن کاملExplaining Preferences from Behavior: A Cognitive Dissonance Approach
The standard approach in positive political theory posits that action choices are the consequences of preferences. Social psychology—in particular, cognitive dissonance theory—suggests the opposite: preferences may themselves be affected by action choices. We present a formal framework that applies this idea to three models of political choice: (1) one in which partisanship emerges naturally in...
متن کاملConstrain-thy-neighbor effects as a determinant of transnational interest group cohesion
This article identifies conditions for transnational interest group cohesion by examining German and British employer positions on EU company law proposals. Employers were divided over proposals on takeover bids but formed a united front against proposals on worker participation. I argue that divergent “constrain-thy-neighbor effects” contribute to explaining the observed variation. Actors cons...
متن کامل