![](\"Figure5.1.jpg\")
\n",
"\n",
""
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"## Interpersonal Relations\n",
"\n",
"### Chapter Summary\n",
"\n",
"We discuss adopted goals from relationships, and how they can influence decision making. Adopted goals affect a variety of cognitive and behavioral phenomena including resource allocation, attention, memory, learning, and emotion. Our model of interpersonal relationships encompasses counterplanning, secondary relationships, persuasion, and attitudes."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"## 5.1 Interpersonal Behavior\n",
"\n",
"We have discussed the need for a cognitive model of decision making to encompass a wide range of goals, not merely the subset of goals required for some limited domain. One of the primary tasks of an agent is to decide which goals to pursue at any given time.\n",
"\n",
"Just as it is necessary for an agent to account for a multitude of disparate goals, so is it appropriate to recognize that an agent must act in a world populated by other agents.\n",
"\n",
"On a typical day, a person will have numerous direct interactions with other individuals, such as friends, shopkeepers, waitresses, colleagues, and relatives. Most of these interactions are cooperative; that is, people generally help each other according to consensual expectations. We expect the waitress to bring us food, and the waitress expects us to pay the bill and leave a tip. Society is built from the web of such interpersonal behavior.\n",
"\n",
"People are interdependent. Many of a person’s common goals require the help of another person. Given that individuals differ in goals, resources, experience, and other areas, it is natural that the relationships between individuals will be ideosyncratic as well. We argue that interpersonal relationships will reflect the underlying ideosyncratic goal structures of the individuals.\n",
"\n",
"However, even though interpersonal behavior will exhibit wide variation as a function of the individuals involved, we can derive a set of common categories of relationships based on the following four dimensions."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"• Goal achievement. We commonly view relationships as examples of cooperative behavior. That is, we get others to achieve goals for us, and we in turn may satisfy their goals, either directly or indirectly. The waitress brings us our order, and we leave a tip.\n",
"\n",
"• Goal development. Some relationships cause us to develop new goals for ourselves, rather than merely satisfy the goals of another agent. A food critic may suggest which restaurants we should avoid and which we should patronize.\n",
"\n",
"• Importance. We wish to ascribe importance to a relationship in a manner uniform with our use of importance to describe goals and resources. That is, the more important a relationship, the more likely a person will be to allocate resources for goals affected by that relationship.\n",
"\n",
"• Symmetry. Relationships are bilateral. Two people are involved. However, each party may have a different view of the relationship, as well as a different view of the other party’s role in the relationship. For example, John may not treat his relationship with Mary with the same importance that Mary does. That relationship would have asymmetry.\n",
"\n",
"Given these dimensions, we can describe some basic types of relationships."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"> Agent/Client. The client’s goal is achieved by the agent. Often, the client reciprocates. Examples include service roles, such as a waitress and customer, or professional roles, such as a doctor and patient. The underlying process is goal achievement. To continue milking our earlier example, John may arrange with the local dairy to have milk delivered to his house. The importance and symmetry of agent relationships will vary.\n",
"\n",
"> Mentor/Disciple. The mentor instills the disciple with a system of beliefs or goals, in effect, passing on a set a values or principles. Examples include the teacher-student relationship, and the parent-child relationship. The underlying process is goal development. John’s mother may have instilled in him the habit of drinking milk. Again, there can be variations in importance and symmetry for mentor relationships.\n",
"\n",
"> Peers. Peers help each other develop new beliefs and goals, and also help each other achieve their goals. Examples include classmates, neighbors, friends, and lovers. This is a combination of both goal development and goal achievement. John’s roommate may have introduced John to drinking beer, and may regularly purchase six-packs.\n",
"\n",
"> Opponents. The three previous categories are positive relationships. A negative relationship is the result of conflicting goals. Opponents act to keep each other from achieving their goals. Examples include rivals or enemies. The underlying process is counterplanning — effectively the reverse of goal development and achievement. John’s roommate may get angry to return home and find his beer all gone. He may resort to hiding the beer or pouring John’s milk down the drain."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"We wish to distinguish between interpersonal relationships and interpersonal role themes [Schank and Abelson, 1977, Dyer, 1982]. A relationship is binary, that is, between two people. A role theme is n-ary, that is, a collection of relationships. For example, the waitress role theme has numerous relationships: with the customer, with the chef, with the maitre d’, with the bus boy, with the manager, with other waitresses, with the customers of other waitresses, and so forth. Associated with each of these relationships are interleaving goals. That is, there are two agents who engage in plans that affect each other’s goals. In effect, each agent has adopted some of the perceived goals of the other agent.\n",
"\n",
"As with goals and plans, relationships and roles have contexts — sets of conditions under which the relationship (and its related goals) are active. For example, a waitress outside the restaurant context does not pursue the goals associated with the waitress role. Some relationships have very broad or even global contexts. Most family relationships have broad contexts. That is to say, you could pursue family goals in many different situations or settings.\n",
"\n",
"It is often the case that the goals of a relationship are active only when in the presence of the other party. The broader the context, the more important the relationship. That is, if you pursue goals derived from a particular relationship when not in the presence of the other person, then that relationship is likely to be of relatively greater importance.\n",
"\n"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"> Principle of Interpersonal Goals. Adopted goals are processed uniformly as individual goals, with a priority determined by the importance and context of the relationship.\n",
"\n",
"Thus, the particular relationship determines both what goals will be adopted in what context, and what importance will be assigned to those goals. The principle of importance applies to adopted goals, meaning that a person will expend resources in pursuit of an adopted goal in proportion to the importance of that adopted goal.\n",
"\n",
"The principle of interpersonal goals thus encompasses the various goal-based phenomena related to importance that we have discussed in previous chapters:"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"• Resource allocation. An agent will be willing to expend more resources on an adopted goal if the affected relationship is of greater importance. You are more likely to help a friend than a stranger.\n",
"\n",
"• Cognitive resources: attention. You would expect to spend more time thinking about the interests or problems of a close friend than those of an acquaintance.\n",
"\n",
"• Cognitive resources: memory. It should be easier to remember information about a friend than about a casual classmate.\n",
"\n",
"• Cognitive resources: learning and explanation. You will be more motivated to explain anomalies relating to close relationships than to those of lesser importance.\n",
"\n",
"• Affect. You will be more likely to experience an affect relating to an adopted goal if the relationship is of greater importance. Also, the intensity of the emotion will reflect the importance of the relationship.\n",
"\n"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"Most of our examples will focus on the phenomenon of resource allocation. However, we claim that the cognitive phenomena are similarly extended to this goal-based model of interpersonal relationships.\n",
"\n",
"To continue an earlier example of drinking milk, let’s give John a girlfriend, Mary, who is also thirsty and wants some milk. We consider the following scenarios.\n",
"\n",
"• If there is only enough milk for one person, John may give all the milk to Mary, indicating that he has adopted her goal of satisfying her thirst, and decided that his relationship places her needs above his. This situation is depicted in Figure 5.1, which indicates that John has adopted Mary’s goals at a level higher than that of his own personal goals. They have equal desires to satisfy thirst, but it is important to John to satisfy Mary’s goals in general. Therefore, he will sacrifice his own desires.\n",
"\n",
"• Alternatively, John may have an egalitarian view of their relationship, suggesting that they share the milk. This situation is diagrammed in Figure 5.2."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"\n",
"
![](\"Figure5.2.jpg\")
\n",
"![](\"Figure5.3.jpg\")
\n", "
![](\"Figure5.4.jpg\")
\n", "
![](\"Figure5.5.jpg\")
\n", "
\n", "Spouse\n", "\n", "Children\n", "\n", "Self\n", "\n", "Parents\n", "\n", "Siblings\n", "\n", "Close friends\n", "\n", "Colleagues, partners\n", "\n", "Classmates\n", "\n", "Neighbors\n", "\n", "Strangers\n", "\n", "Low-priority." ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "This ordering is merely an example. It indicates someone who cares more for his children than for his parents, and more for his wife than anyone else. It also suggests that the person will put the well-being of his wife and children ahead of his own. The hierarchy of relationships is idiosyncratic and will vary among people and cultures, and even within the same individual at different times in life." ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "## 5.2 Adversarial and Secondary Relations\n", "\n", "Carbonell used goal hierarchies to model interpersonal behavior in adversarial relationships [Carbonell, 1979]. His POLITICS program focused on counterplanning — taking measures to keep your opponent from achieving his goals while preventing him from blocking your own plans. The representation offered here is compatible with Carbonell’s model, and provides additional capabilities. Specifically, the goals of an adversary are adopted as negative goals by an agent at a priority level proportional to the strength of the relationship. The present model predicts to what extent an agent will divide limited resources between the achievement of his own plans and the blocking of his opponent’s goals. The same account can be made for the actions of the opponent, based on the agent’s model of the opponent’s goals, plans, and resources.\n", "\n", "Another interpersonal phenomenon that this model accounts for is secondary relationships. How should you behave toward your wife’s college roommate? your next-door neighbor’s brother? your best friend’s law partner? your secretary’s mother? your barber’s television repairman? People regularly encounter such secondary relationships and must react appropriately. You might cosign a loan for your son, and maybe for your son’s father-in-law, but you probably would not even send a get-well card if your butcher’s nephew’s neighbor had appendicitis.\n", "\n", "The importance of such secondary goals is a function of the underlying relationships and the priority of the goal to the original agent." ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "> Principle of Secondary Interpersonal Goals. Adopted secondary interpersonal goals are processed uniformly as interpersonal and individual goals, with a priority proportional to the secondary relationship.\n", "\n", "Note that the actual pursuit of a secondary adopted goal is independent of the action of the intermediate agent. For example, you could cosign a loan for your son’s father-in-law, even though your son did not. Presumably your son did not have sufficient resources. The opposite could also apply. You might ask your brother to donate money to a political candidate to whom you gave $1000. Your brother’s actions will depend on, among other things, his discretionary income and competing demands." ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "## 5.3 The Persuade Package Revisited\n", "\n", "Schank and Abelson [Schank and Abelson, 1977] discuss interpersonal planning strategies, such as having someone perform a service for you, or provide you with information, or control of an object, or the authority to perform some act. Generally viewed, these are instances of someone devoting resources to achieve an adopted goal. Schank and Abelson offer a set of specific plans (termed “the persuade package”) for getting someone else to act on your behalf. The elements of the persuade package are as follows, together with examples from the domain of thirsty John and his roommate.\n", "\n" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "> ASK. John asked his roommate for a beer.\n", "\n", "> INVOKE THEME. John said that roommates should share their beer.\n", "\n", "> INFORM REASON. John said that he was thirsty after jogging 10 miles.\n", "\n", "> BARGAIN OBJECT. John offered his roommate a bottle of milk in exchange for a beer.\n", "\n", "> BARGAIN FAVOR. John said he would clean up the kitchen if his roommate gave him a beer.\n", "\n", "> THREATEN. John said he would erase his roommate’s cassette tapes if the roommate did not give John a beer.\n", "\n", "> OVERPOWER. John slugged his roommate and grabbed the beer.\n", "\n", "> STEAL. John took the beer without telling his roommate." ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "Note that the last two categories (OVERPOWER and STEAL) are not really for persuasion. They do not require an intentional act by the other party.\n", "\n", "According to Schank and Abelson, the ordering of these elements (or “planboxes”) is significant. If an early planbox fails, then the agent can move on to a more powerful planbox. Thus, if John offers his roommate a dollar to give him a beer, and the roommate refuses, John might then threaten his roommate. However, after offering to buy the beer and failing, John could not then go back and simply ask for the beer. But, anomalies can arise from this strict principle. For example, this theory suggests that if John is unsuccessful in threatening his roommate, he would not succeed if he then offered $100 for the can of beer, since he would be returning to a less powerful planbox.\n", "\n", "We can resolve this anomaly and still account for the central idea in the persuade package by viewing persuasion in the context of our model of interpersonal relationships. According to the model described in the preceding sections, another person will act on our behalf if he has adopted one of our goals, and has adequate resources to achieve a plan that does not conflict with his more important goals.\n", "\n", "We can break down the process of persuasion in greater detail. To have another agent achieve a goal on our behalf requires all of the following conditions. If any of these conditions fails, then the agent will not (intentionally) help us. A person can facilitate the persuasion process by acting to achieve these conditions." ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "> KNOW. The agent must know of our goal. The roommate needs to know that John wants to drink a beer. John can simply tell his roommate of his desire. [ASK planbox]\n", "\n", "> PLAN. The agent must have a plan for achieving our goal. The roommate must know that he can offer John a beer. Presumably, John can assume that the roommate knows the basic plan for transferring possession of an object. If not, John can inform him of the plan.\n", "\n", "> RESOURCES. The agent must have resources to achieve the plan. The roommate must be in possession of a beer. If the roommate does not want to go to the kitchen himself, John can offer to save him the trip.\n", "\n", "> PRIORITY. The agent must have no active competing goals of a higher priority. The roommate’s present or future thirst must either be less important than John’s request, or able to be satisfied through other means. Most persuade package planboxes focus on this element. By making the adopted goal instrumental to existing important goals, the planboxes increase the priority of the adopted goal. Accordingly, an offer of a more valuable object is likely to succeed. For example, John could offer his roommate a new VCR in exchange for the beer.\n", "\n" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "We can now view the persuade package in terms of our goal-based model of interpersonal relations. Consider two agents, A and B. Agent A has a goal, G(A), which he wants agent B to achieve for him. Thus, A wants to persuade B to achieve G(A). At the same time, agent B has his own active goal, G(B), which may conflict with G(A). That is, if agent B tries to achieve G(A), he may expend resources that would otherwise have allowed him to achieve G(B).\n", "\n", "To be specific, we can use our earlier example. We shall assume that agent A is John, agent B is John’s roommate, and that G(A) is John wants a beer. The following describe the circumstances under which the respective persuade package planbox would succeed.\n", "\n" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "> ASK. In Figure 5.6, there is no major conflict between A’s G(Drink–Beer) and B’s G(Drink–Beer). John asks his roommate for a beer and the roommate complies. The roommate’s goal of drinking beer is at a low level.\n", "\n", "> INVOKE THEME. In Figure 5.7, there is a direct conflict between A’s G(Drink–Beer) and B’s G(Drink–Beer). However, A’s G(Drink–Beer) is seen as instrumental to the relationship between A and B: Rel(A-B). John said that roommates should share their beer. Thus, B’s decision is not whether his goal is more important than A’s, but rather is B’s G(Drink–Beer) more important than Rel(A–B).\n", "\n", "> INFORM REASON. Figure 5.8 shows the case in which A’s G(Drink–Beer) is seen to be of greater intrinsic importance than B’s G(Drink–Beer), with which it is in conflict. John said that he was thirsty after jogging ten miles. (This is similar to the situation depicted earlier in Figure 5.3.)\n", "\n", "> BARGAIN OBJECT/FAVOR. Figure 5.9 depicts the Bargain–Object and Bargain–Favor planboxes. Agent A offers to achieve another goal of agent B, here G(B), in return for agent B helping agent A achieve A’s G(Drink–Beer). In our examples, John offered his roommate a bottle of milk, and John said he would clean up the kitchen. The success of this planbox depends on the relative importance of B’s G(Drink–Beer) and G(B).\n", "\n", "> THREATEN. The flip side of bargain is threaten, shown in Figure 5.10. Here, agent A extorts the help of agent B by threatening to block a more important goal of agent B, G(B), if B does not cooperate in achieving A’s G(Drink–Beer). John said he would erase his roommate’s cassette tapes. Again, the success of this planbox depends on the relative importance of B’s G(Drink–Beer) and G(B). Moreover, the act of extortion could undermine the relationship itself, resulting in a number of different possible outcomes." ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "
![](\"Figure5.6.jpg\")
\n", "
![](\"Figure5.7.jpg\")
\n", "
![](\"Figure5.8.jpg\")
\n", "
![](\"Figure5.9.jpg\")
\n", "
![](\"Figure5.10.jpg\")
\n", "
![](\"Figure5.x1.jpg\")
\n",
"\n",
"For example, “John likes Mary” would be represented as:\n",
"\n",
"![](\"Figure5.x2.jpg\")
\n",
"\n"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"The following inferences are associated with FONDNESS.\n",
"\n",
"• If A has FONDNESS-ANTIPATHY of degree n toward B, then A will have the goal of being near to B (of avoiding B if n is negative), with the strength of the goal being a function of n.\n",
"\n",
"• If B has goal G, then the greater n is, the more A will want B to achieve goal G. If n is negative, the greater the absolute value of n, the more A will want B not to achieve goal G.\n",
"\n",
"• The greater n is, the more A will have the goal of developing positive relationships with B.\n",
"\n",
"• When A is with B, A will feel JOY in accordance with n.\n",
"\n",
"• If an opportunity presents itself to A to help (hurt) B, A will act to benefit (harm) B in accordance with n."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"We would like to suggest that much of the representational benefit of this system of attitude primitives can be derived directly from the existing interpersonal goal hierarchy model proposed here, without positing additional knowledge representations or inferences.\n",
"\n",
"Thus, for “John likes Mary,” we would infer that John has a positive relationship with Mary and will expend resources in proportion to the importance of that relationship. The inferences given for FONDNESS-ANTIPATHY are too specific. Their general meaning can be derived from the goal hierarchy model of interpersonal relationships. Also, it is easy to come up with counterexamples for the FONDNESS inferences for which the goal-importance model would account. For example, if A likes B, and A has a contagious disease, A would probably have the goal of staying away from B as a function of n. Or if B has the goal G of marrying person C, then the greater n is, A may not want B to achieve goal G.\n",
"\n",
"We believe that attitudes can be treated in a manner uniform with other goal-related phenomena. Attitudes give rise to goals, and thus will trigger inferences regarding resource allocation, affect, attention, memory, learning, and explanation.\n",
"\n",
"In the examples involving Picasso and Beethoven, we assume that John has high-level taste goals relating to Picasso and Beethoven. We can infer that John will expend resources in pursuit of those goals in the appropriate contexts, such as going to museums or concerts. As with other goals, the specific inferences are going to depend on the agent’s competing goals and resources."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"Similarly, the attitude of TRUST can be derived from our model of goal importance. If we say “John trusts Mary,” we assert that John believes that Mary will not take actions that are harmful to John. In the goal hierarchy, John believes that Mary has adopted John’s goals at some high level. The greater the trust, the higher the level. Thus, John believes that if Mary faces a conflict involving a goal of John’s, Mary will act in accordance with John’s interests. LOYALTY can be viewed as analogous to TRUST, but from the perspective of the other party. That is, you can trust someone who is loyal to you.\n",
"\n",
"There were four inference rules for TRUST in [Schank et al., 1978]. Given that A has TRUST of degree n toward B, then the following rules hold:\n",
"\n",
"• A will ask B to do tasks whose importance to A are proportional to n.\n",
"\n",
"• If B tells A something, A will give it credibility in accordance with n.\n",
"\n",
"• If n is negative, and B offers A a deal, then A will be suspicious of B in accordance with n.\n",
"\n",
"• If n is negative, A will not want to leave B alone with his possessions in accordance with n.\n",
"\n"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"As with FONDNESS, we believe that these inferences for TRUST are too specific. These inferences can be derived from a basic goal hierarchy interpretation of TRUST. Furthermore, numerous other inferences can be made concerning other goals, resources, cognitive resources, affect, and relationships.\n",
"\n",
"RESPECT is also similar to TRUST. To say “John respects Mary” implies that John shares high-level principles with Mary. That is, Mary and John have common values and ideals. The degree of respect will reflect the quantity and importance of these goals. We may also infer that John has adopted Mary’s goals.\n",
"\n",
"The inference rules for RESPECT from [Schank et al., 1978] are stated for agent A having RESPECT of degree n toward agent B.\n",
"\n",
"• A will consider B’s wants and goals against his own in accordance with n. For example, A may give B his seat if n is high positive, but would take the only seat if n is low negative.\n",
"\n",
"• A will be polite or rude to B in accordance with n.\n",
"\n",
"• A will wish to establish positive social relationships with B in accordance with n. For example, if n is high, A might wish to become B’s friend, business associate, disciple, or teacher. If such a relationship exists, and A develops a low negative RESPECT toward B, then A might move to sever the relationship.\n",
"\n",
"• A will want to be associated with B by his community in accordance with n.\n",
"\n"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"We claim that these inferences for RESPECT are incomplete, and are encompassed by our more general goal-importance model.\n",
"\n",
"We wish to point out that our approach to representing attitudes through interpersonal goal hierarchies has the benefit of avoiding another artificial scale. Earlier we argued that scales such as HEALTH(10) could be obviated through the use of goal hierarchies. Our approach has the following advantages.\n",
"\n",
"• Parsimony. The role of one knowledge representation is subsumed by another.\n",
"\n",
"• Canonicalization. Many cognitive and behavioral phenomena map onto the same canonical knowledge representation.\n",
"\n",
"• Robustness. There is a wide range of inferences available due to the disparate phenomena related to goal importance.\n",
"\n",
"These same arguments apply to using goal hierarchies as the basis for representing attitudes. The scale of the attitude is naturally reflected in the importance hierarchy.\n",
"\n",
"We can begin to explain other aspects of attitudes as well. Consider the next example.\n",
"\n",
"> Example 5.4 John had a bad attitude about school."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"\n",
"Chapter 5\n",
"\n",
"Interpersonal Relations\n",
"\n",
"Chapter Summary\n",
"\n",
"We discuss adopted goals from relationships, and how they can influence decision making. Adopted goals affect a variety of cognitive and behavioral phenomena including resource allocation, attention, memory, learning, and emotion. Our model of interpersonal relationships encompasses counterplanning, secondary relationships, persuasion, and attitudes.\n",
"\n",
"5.1 Interpersonal Behavior\n",
"\n",
"We have discussed the need for a cognitive model of decision making to encompass a wide range of goals, not merely the subset of goals required for some limited domain. One of the primary tasks of an agent is to decide which goals to pursue at any given time.\n",
"\n",
"Just as it is necessary for an agent to account for a multitude of disparate goals, so is it appropriate to recognize that an agent must act in a world populated by other agents.\n",
"\n",
"On a typical day, a person will have numerous direct interactions with other individuals, such as friends, shopkeepers, waitresses, colleagues, and relatives. Most of these interactions are cooperative; that is, people generally help each other according to consensual expectations. We expect the waitress to bring us food, and the waitress expects us to pay the bill and leave a tip. Society is built from the web of such interpersonal behavior.\n",
"\n",
"People are interdependent. Many of a person’s common goals require the help of another person. Given that individuals differ in goals, resources, experience, and other areas, it is natural that the relationships between individuals will be ideosyncratic as well. We argue that interpersonal relationships will reflect the underlying ideosyncratic goal structures of the individuals.\n",
"\n",
"However, even though interpersonal behavior will exhibit wide variation as a function of the individuals involved, we can derive a set of common categories of relationships based on the following four dimensions.\n",
"\n",
"• Goal achievement. We commonly view relationships as examples of cooperative behavior. That is, we get others to achieve goals for us, and we in turn may satisfy their goals, either directly or indirectly. The waitress brings us our order, and we leave a tip.\n",
"\n",
"• Goal development. Some relationships cause us to develop new goals for ourselves, rather than merely satisfy the goals of another agent. A food critic may suggest which restaurants we should avoid and which we should patronize.\n",
"\n",
"• Importance. We wish to ascribe importance to a relationship in a manner uniform with our use of importance to describe goals and resources. That is, the more important a relationship, the more likely a person will be to allocate resources for goals affected by that relationship.\n",
"\n",
"• Symmetry. Relationships are bilateral. Two people are involved. However, each party may have a different view of the relationship, as well as a different view of the other party’s role in the relationship. For example, John may not treat his relationship with Mary with the same importance that Mary does. That relationship would have asymmetry.\n",
"\n",
"Given these dimensions, we can describe some basic types of relationships.\n",
"\n",
"Agent/Client. The client’s goal is achieved by the agent. Often, the client reciprocates. Examples include service roles, such as a waitress and customer, or professional roles, such as a doctor and patient. The underlying process is goal achievement. To continue milking our earlier example, John may arrange with the local dairy to have milk delivered to his house. The importance and symmetry of agent relationships will vary.\n",
"\n",
"Mentor/Disciple. The mentor instills the disciple with a system of beliefs or goals, in effect, passing on a set a values or principles. Examples include the teacher-student relationship, and the parent-child relationship. The underlying process is goal development. John’s mother may have instilled in him the habit of drinking milk. Again, there can be variations in importance and symmetry for mentor relationships.\n",
"\n",
"Peers. Peers help each other develop new beliefs and goals, and also help each other achieve their goals. Examples include classmates, neighbors, friends, and lovers. This is a combination of both goal development and goal achievement. John’s roommate may have introduced John to drinking beer, and may regularly purchase six-packs.\n",
"\n",
"Opponents. The three previous categories are positive relationships. A negative relationship is the result of conflicting goals. Opponents act to keep each other from achieving their goals. Examples include rivals or enemies. The underlying process is counterplanning — effectively the reverse of goal development and achievement. John’s roommate may get angry to return home and find his beer all gone. He may resort to hiding the beer or pouring John’s milk down the drain.\n",
"\n",
"We wish to distinguish between interpersonal relationships and interpersonal role themes [Schank and Abelson, 1977, Dyer, 1982]. A relationship is binary, that is, between two people. A role theme is n-ary, that is, a collection of relationships. For example, the waitress role theme has numerous relationships: with the customer, with the chef, with the maitre d’, with the bus boy, with the manager, with other waitresses, with the customers of other waitresses, and so forth. Associated with each of these relationships are interleaving goals. That is, there are two agents who engage in plans that affect each other’s goals. In effect, each agent has adopted some of the perceived goals of the other agent.\n",
"\n",
"As with goals and plans, relationships and roles have contexts — sets of conditions under which the relationship (and its related goals) are active. For example, a waitress outside the restaurant context does not pursue the goals associated with the waitress role. Some relationships have very broad or even global contexts. Most family relationships have broad contexts. That is to say, you could pursue family goals in many different situations or settings.\n",
"\n",
"It is often the case that the goals of a relationship are active only when in the presence of the other party. The broader the context, the more important the relationship. That is, if you pursue goals derived from a particular relationship when not in the presence of the other person, then that relationship is likely to be of relatively greater importance.\n",
"\n",
"Principle of Interpersonal Goals. Adopted goals are processed uniformly as individual goals, with a priority determined by the importance and context of the relationship.\n",
"\n",
"Thus, the particular relationship determines both what goals will be adopted in what context, and what importance will be assigned to those goals. The principle of importance applies to adopted goals, meaning that a person will expend resources in pursuit of an adopted goal in proportion to the importance of that adopted goal.\n",
"\n",
"The principle of interpersonal goals thus encompasses the various goal-based phenomena related to importance that we have discussed in previous chapters:\n",
"\n",
"• Resource allocation. An agent will be willing to expend more resources on an adopted goal if the affected relationship is of greater importance. You are more likely to help a friend than a stranger.\n",
"\n",
"• Cognitive resources: attention. You would expect to spend more time thinking about the interests or problems of a close friend than those of an acquaintance.\n",
"\n",
"• Cognitive resources: memory. It should be easier to remember information about a friend than about a casual classmate.\n",
"\n",
"• Cognitive resources: learning and explanation. You will be more motivated to explain anomalies relating to close relationships than to those of lesser importance.\n",
"\n",
"• Affect. You will be more likely to experience an affect relating to an adopted goal if the relationship is of greater importance. Also, the intensity of the emotion will reflect the importance of the relationship.\n",
"\n",
"Most of our examples will focus on the phenomenon of resource allocation. However, we claim that the cognitive phenomena are similarly extended to this goal-based model of interpersonal relationships.\n",
"\n",
"To continue an earlier example of drinking milk, let’s give John a girlfriend, Mary, who is also thirsty and wants some milk. We consider the following scenarios.\n",
"\n",
"• If there is only enough milk for one person, John may give all the milk to Mary, indicating that he has adopted her goal of satisfying her thirst, and decided that his relationship places her needs above his. This situation is depicted in Figure 5.1, which indicates that John has adopted Mary’s goals at a level higher than that of his own personal goals. They have equal desires to satisfy thirst, but it is important to John to satisfy Mary’s goals in general. Therefore, he will sacrifice his own desires.\n",
"\n",
"• Alternatively, John may have an egalitarian view of their relationship, suggesting that they share the milk. This situation is diagrammed in Figure 5.2.\n",
"\n",
"image\n",
"\n",
"Figure 5.1: John–Mary Relationship: Mary Regnant\n",
"\n",
"image\n",
"\n",
"Figure 5.2: John–Mary Relationship: Egalitarian\n",
"\n",
"\n",
"image\n",
"\n",
"Figure 5.3: John–Mary Relationship: Unequal Needs\n",
"\n",
"image\n",
"\n",
"Figure 5.4: John–Mary Relationship: John Regnant\n",
"\n",
"image\n",
"\n",
"Figure 5.5: John-Mary Relationship: John Callous\n",
"\n",
"• However, if Mary has an acute calcium deficiency, making her need to drink milk more pressing than John’s, John would give her the milk. Figure 5.3 portrays this state of affairs. The relationship is egalitarian, but Mary has a greater need.\n",
"\n",
"• In another scenario, John may have just had an argument with Mary, making him lower the importance factor of their relationship; so while John might be willing to expend resources in achieving high-priority adopted goals, such as in saving Mary’s life, he is not going to let his own interests take a backseat, and he drinks all the milk himself. Figure 5.4 illustrates this situation.\n",
"\n",
"• Finally, Figure 5.5 illustrates an extreme situation in which John is simply selfish. Here John places his own less important needs over the more critical needs of Mary.\n",
"\n",
"This process of goal adoption suggests a hierarchy of relationships.\n",
"\n",
"High-priority.\n",
"\n",
"Spouse\n",
"\n",
"Children\n",
"\n",
"Self\n",
"\n",
"Parents\n",
"\n",
"Siblings\n",
"\n",
"Close friends\n",
"\n",
"Colleagues, partners\n",
"\n",
"Classmates\n",
"\n",
"Neighbors\n",
"\n",
"Strangers\n",
"\n",
"Low-priority.\n",
"\n",
"This ordering is merely an example. It indicates someone who cares more for his children than for his parents, and more for his wife than anyone else. It also suggests that the person will put the well-being of his wife and children ahead of his own. The hierarchy of relationships is idiosyncratic and will vary among people and cultures, and even within the same individual at different times in life.\n",
"\n",
"5.2 Adversarial and Secondary Relations\n",
"\n",
"Carbonell used goal hierarchies to model interpersonal behavior in adversarial relationships [Carbonell, 1979]. His POLITICS program focused on counterplanning — taking measures to keep your opponent from achieving his goals while preventing him from blocking your own plans. The representation offered here is compatible with Carbonell’s model, and provides additional capabilities. Specifically, the goals of an adversary are adopted as negative goals by an agent at a priority level proportional to the strength of the relationship. The present model predicts to what extent an agent will divide limited resources between the achievement of his own plans and the blocking of his opponent’s goals. The same account can be made for the actions of the opponent, based on the agent’s model of the opponent’s goals, plans, and resources.\n",
"\n",
"Another interpersonal phenomenon that this model accounts for is secondary relationships. How should you behave toward your wife’s college roommate? your next-door neighbor’s brother? your best friend’s law partner? your secretary’s mother? your barber’s television repairman? People regularly encounter such secondary relationships and must react appropriately. You might cosign a loan for your son, and maybe for your son’s father-in-law, but you probably would not even send a get-well card if your butcher’s nephew’s neighbor had appendicitis.\n",
"\n",
"The importance of such secondary goals is a function of the underlying relationships and the priority of the goal to the original agent.\n",
"\n",
"Principle of Secondary Interpersonal Goals. Adopted secondary interpersonal goals are processed uniformly as interpersonal and individual goals, with a priority proportional to the secondary relationship.\n",
"\n",
"Note that the actual pursuit of a secondary adopted goal is independent of the action of the intermediate agent. For example, you could cosign a loan for your son’s father-in-law, even though your son did not. Presumably your son did not have sufficient resources. The opposite could also apply. You might ask your brother to donate money to a political candidate to whom you gave $1000. Your brother’s actions will depend on, among other things, his discretionary income and competing demands.\n",
"\n",
"5.3 The Persuade Package Revisited\n",
"\n",
"Schank and Abelson [Schank and Abelson, 1977] discuss interpersonal planning strategies, such as having someone perform a service for you, or provide you with information, or control of an object, or the authority to perform some act. Generally viewed, these are instances of someone devoting resources to achieve an adopted goal. Schank and Abelson offer a set of specific plans (termed “the persuade package”) for getting someone else to act on your behalf. The elements of the persuade package are as follows, together with examples from the domain of thirsty John and his roommate.\n",
"\n",
"ASK. John asked his roommate for a beer.\n",
"\n",
"INVOKE THEME. John said that roommates should share their beer.\n",
"\n",
"INFORM REASON. John said that he was thirsty after jogging 10 miles.\n",
"\n",
"BARGAIN OBJECT. John offered his roommate a bottle of milk in exchange for a beer.\n",
"\n",
"BARGAIN FAVOR. John said he would clean up the kitchen if his roommate gave him a beer.\n",
"\n",
"THREATEN. John said he would erase his roommate’s cassette tapes if the roommate did not give John a beer.\n",
"\n",
"OVERPOWER. John slugged his roommate and grabbed the beer.\n",
"\n",
"STEAL. John took the beer without telling his roommate.\n",
"\n",
"Note that the last two categories (OVERPOWER and STEAL) are not really for persuasion. They do not require an intentional act by the other party.\n",
"\n",
"According to Schank and Abelson, the ordering of these elements (or “planboxes”) is significant. If an early planbox fails, then the agent can move on to a more powerful planbox. Thus, if John offers his roommate a dollar to give him a beer, and the roommate refuses, John might then threaten his roommate. However, after offering to buy the beer and failing, John could not then go back and simply ask for the beer. But, anomalies can arise from this strict principle. For example, this theory suggests that if John is unsuccessful in threatening his roommate, he would not succeed if he then offered $100 for the can of beer, since he would be returning to a less powerful planbox.\n",
"\n",
"We can resolve this anomaly and still account for the central idea in the persuade package by viewing persuasion in the context of our model of interpersonal relationships. According to the model described in the preceding sections, another person will act on our behalf if he has adopted one of our goals, and has adequate resources to achieve a plan that does not conflict with his more important goals.\n",
"\n",
"We can break down the process of persuasion in greater detail. To have another agent achieve a goal on our behalf requires all of the following conditions. If any of these conditions fails, then the agent will not (intentionally) help us. A person can facilitate the persuasion process by acting to achieve these conditions.\n",
"\n",
"KNOW. The agent must know of our goal. The roommate needs to know that John wants to drink a beer. John can simply tell his roommate of his desire. [ASK planbox]\n",
"\n",
"PLAN. The agent must have a plan for achieving our goal. The roommate must know that he can offer John a beer. Presumably, John can assume that the roommate knows the basic plan for transferring possession of an object. If not, John can inform him of the plan.\n",
"\n",
"RESOURCES. The agent must have resources to achieve the plan. The roommate must be in possession of a beer. If the roommate does not want to go to the kitchen himself, John can offer to save him the trip.\n",
"\n",
"PRIORITY. The agent must have no active competing goals of a higher priority. The roommate’s present or future thirst must either be less important than John’s request, or able to be satisfied through other means. Most persuade package planboxes focus on this element. By making the adopted goal instrumental to existing important goals, the planboxes increase the priority of the adopted goal. Accordingly, an offer of a more valuable object is likely to succeed. For example, John could offer his roommate a new VCR in exchange for the beer.\n",
"\n",
"We can now view the persuade package in terms of our goal-based model of interpersonal relations. Consider two agents, A and B. Agent A has a goal, G(A), which he wants agent B to achieve for him. Thus, A wants to persuade B to achieve G(A). At the same time, agent B has his own active goal, G(B), which may conflict with G(A). That is, if agent B tries to achieve G(A), he may expend resources that would otherwise have allowed him to achieve G(B).\n",
"\n",
"To be specific, we can use our earlier example. We shall assume that agent A is John, agent B is John’s roommate, and that G(A) is John wants a beer. The following describe the circumstances under which the respective persuade package planbox would succeed.\n",
"\n",
"ASK. In Figure 5.6, there is no major conflict between A’s G(Drink–Beer) and B’s G(Drink–Beer). John asks his roommate for a beer and the roommate complies. The roommate’s goal of drinking beer is at a low level.\n",
"\n",
"INVOKE THEME. In Figure 5.7, there is a direct conflict between A’s G(Drink–Beer) and B’s G(Drink–Beer). However, A’s G(Drink–Beer) is seen as instrumental to the relationship between A and B: Rel(A-B). John said that roommates should share their beer. Thus, B’s decision is not whether his goal is more important than A’s, but rather is B’s G(Drink–Beer) more important than Rel(A–B).\n",
"\n",
"INFORM REASON. Figure 5.8 shows the case in which A’s G(Drink–Beer) is seen to be of greater intrinsic importance than B’s G(Drink–Beer), with which it is in conflict. John said that he was thirsty after jogging ten miles. (This is similar to the situation depicted earlier in Figure 5.3.)\n",
"\n",
"BARGAIN OBJECT/FAVOR. Figure 5.9 depicts the Bargain–Object and Bargain–Favor planboxes. Agent A offers to achieve another goal of agent B, here G(B), in return for agent B helping agent A achieve A’s G(Drink–Beer). In our examples, John offered his roommate a bottle of milk, and John said he would clean up the kitchen. The success of this planbox depends on the relative importance of B’s G(Drink–Beer) and G(B).\n",
"\n",
"THREATEN. The flip side of bargain is threaten, shown in Figure 5.10. Here, agent A extorts the help of agent B by threatening to block a more important goal of agent B, G(B), if B does not cooperate in achieving A’s G(Drink–Beer). John said he would erase his roommate’s cassette tapes. Again, the success of this planbox depends on the relative importance of B’s G(Drink–Beer) and G(B). Moreover, the act of extortion could undermine the relationship itself, resulting in a number of different possible outcomes.\n",
"\n",
"image\n",
"\n",
"Figure 5.6: Ask Planbox\n",
"\n",
"image\n",
"\n",
"Figure 5.7: Invoke Theme Planbox\n",
"\n",
"image\n",
"\n",
"Figure 5.8: Inform Reason Planbox\n",
"\n",
"image\n",
"\n",
"Figure 5.9: Bargain (Object/Favor) Planbox\n",
"\n",
"image\n",
"\n",
"Figure 5.10: Threaten Planbox\n",
"\n",
"These persuade package examples illustrate successful persuasion states. A key aspect of successful persuasion is the relative importance of the goals involved. Here are some examples of persuasion tactics that would presumably fail due to the improper relative importance of the goals and resources involved.\n",
"\n",
"ASK. John asked his neighbor to paint John’s house.\n",
"\n",
"INVOKE THEME. John asked his neighbor to paint John’s house, since he lived next door.\n",
"\n",
"INFORM REASON. John asked his neighbor to paint his house, since it would make the neighborhood more attractive.\n",
"\n",
"BARGAIN OBJECT. John offered to give his neighbor a six-pack if he painted John’s house.\n",
"\n",
"BARGAIN FAVOR. John offered to walk his neighbor’s dog if he painted John’s house.\n",
"\n",
"THREATEN. John threatened to let the air out of his neighbor’s tires unless he painted John’s house.\n",
"\n",
"These examples illustrate the point that persuasion depends on the relative importance of the affected goals and resources. We could make the preceding examples more plausible by changing the task from “paint John’s house” to “pick up John’s mail while John is away for the weekend.” That is, the neighbor would be more likely to comply with the latter request, than with the former.\n",
"\n",
"This brings up another point. In selecting an agent to help achieve a goal, the process of persuasion will be easier if that person is predisposed to that goal. That is, a person will be more willing to adopt a goal if that person believes that the goal being pursued is an important goal, or relates to other goals that he believes to be important. Another way of stating this point is that intrinsic motivation is more compelling than extrinsic motivation. It is easier to convince someone to do something that he finds satisfying or important, than to motivate someone to do something for an external reward.\n",
"\n",
"The relationship itself accounts for part of the perceived importance of the request. The more important the relationship, the greater the perceived importance of the request. All other things being equal, it should be easier to convince a spouse or friend to do something for you than a neighbor or stranger. However, even with an important relationship, the request may cause a high-level goal conflict. If you request a friend to do something for you that violates a more important goal, he may refuse. Persuasion is most successful when the following conditions are met.\n",
"\n",
"• The relationship between the client and agent is perceived by the agent as important.\n",
"\n",
"• The agent perceives the request as intrinsically important.\n",
"\n",
"• The agent has sufficient resources to achieve the goal.\n",
"\n",
"• The agent does not have a conflict with other important goals.\n",
"\n",
"Consider the relationship between a teacher and a student. First, if a student has several teachers, he should devote more attention to the assignments of the teacher to whom he feels closest, other things being equal. Second, the student will be more motivated to pursue a goal set by the teacher if the student perceives that goal to be important. Third, the student must be capable of achieving the goal. Persuasion cannot overcome a basic lack of ability. Finally, the goal set by the teacher should not be in conflict with other goals of the student.\n",
"\n",
"If a manager has task X to be performed and has a number of workers to whom that task might be assigned, the manager is usually better off giving the job to the worker who feels strongly that task X is important. The other workers may do the task simply as part of their jobs, but the worker who believes in the importance of task X will be more diligent in accomplishing task X.\n",
"\n",
"For example, if the manager has to delegate the implementation of a recycling program in the office, it is probably a good idea to choose the employee who cares the most about environmental issues.\n",
"\n",
"Most of our persuasion examples have dealt with agent relationships — asking someone to do something for you. We should say that persuasion also applies to goal development situations — convincing someone to adopt a goal for his own good. For example, a parent’s relationship with a child is typical of a goal development relationship. The parent may make numerous demands of the child, e.g., “drink your milk,” “do not play with matches,” “do not cross the street without an adult.” The primary beneficiary of these goals is not the parent, but the child. In following the direction of the parent, the child is not an agent for the parent, but rather a disciple of the parent. The parent is training the child.\n",
"\n",
"Parents are quite familiar with the persuade package, as the following examples demonstrate.\n",
"\n",
"ASK. Drink your milk.\n",
"\n",
"INVOKE THEME. I am your mother and I say that you should drink your milk.\n",
"\n",
"INFORM REASON. Drink your milk so that you will grow up to be big and strong.\n",
"\n",
"BARGAIN OBJECT. If you drink your milk, you can have a cookie.\n",
"\n",
"BARGAIN FAVOR. If you drink your milk, you can stay up till 8:30 tonight.\n",
"\n",
"THREATEN. If you do not drink your milk, you cannot watch TV.\n",
"\n",
"The phenomenon of persuasion is a basic aspect of interpersonal relationships. We claim that our model of goal-based interpersonal behavior accounts for many types of persuasion as described by the persuade package.\n",
"\n",
"5.4 Attitudes and Scales\n",
"\n",
"We now turn to another dimension of interpersonal behavior: attitudes. Consider the following.\n",
"\n",
"Example 5.1 John likes Mary.\n",
"\n",
"Example 5.2 John likes Picasso.\n",
"\n",
"Example 5.3 John likes Beethoven.\n",
"\n",
"The first example is clearly different from the latter two. There are normative contexts and expectations associated with Picasso and Beethoven. We assume that John likes Picasso as an artist, and Beethoven as a composer. The default expectation for the first example is that John likes Mary as a person. We assume that Mary, unlike Picasso and Beethoven, is alive, and that she may have some attitude about John. Schank et al. (1978) discuss cases such as these and propose ways of representing a range of attitudes using a set of primitives with associated inferences. They describe an attitude schema with four slots:\n",
"\n",
"• Possessor. The person who has the attitude.\n",
"\n",
"• Object. The person, object, or activity to which the attitude is directed.\n",
"\n",
"• Intensity. The strength of the attitude, ranging from -10 (completely negative) to 0 (ambivalent) to 10 (completely positive).\n",
"\n",
"• Attitude. The primitive attitude itself consisting of one of the following dimensions:\n",
"\n",
"image\n",
"\n",
"For example, “John likes Mary” would be represented as:\n",
"\n",
"image\n",
"\n",
"The following inferences are associated with FONDNESS.\n",
"\n",
"• If A has FONDNESS-ANTIPATHY of degree n toward B, then A will have the goal of being near to B (of avoiding B if n is negative), with the strength of the goal being a function of n.\n",
"\n",
"• If B has goal G, then the greater n is, the more A will want B to achieve goal G. If n is negative, the greater the absolute value of n, the more A will want B not to achieve goal G.\n",
"\n",
"• The greater n is, the more A will have the goal of developing positive relationships with B.\n",
"\n",
"• When A is with B, A will feel JOY in accordance with n.\n",
"\n",
"• If an opportunity presents itself to A to help (hurt) B, A will act to benefit (harm) B in accordance with n.\n",
"\n",
"We would like to suggest that much of the representational benefit of this system of attitude primitives can be derived directly from the existing interpersonal goal hierarchy model proposed here, without positing additional knowledge representations or inferences.\n",
"\n",
"Thus, for “John likes Mary,” we would infer that John has a positive relationship with Mary and will expend resources in proportion to the importance of that relationship. The inferences given for FONDNESS-ANTIPATHY are too specific. Their general meaning can be derived from the goal hierarchy model of interpersonal relationships. Also, it is easy to come up with counterexamples for the FONDNESS inferences for which the goal-importance model would account. For example, if A likes B, and A has a contagious disease, A would probably have the goal of staying away from B as a function of n. Or if B has the goal G of marrying person C, then the greater n is, A may not want B to achieve goal G.\n",
"\n",
"We believe that attitudes can be treated in a manner uniform with other goal-related phenomena. Attitudes give rise to goals, and thus will trigger inferences regarding resource allocation, affect, attention, memory, learning, and explanation.\n",
"\n",
"In the examples involving Picasso and Beethoven, we assume that John has high-level taste goals relating to Picasso and Beethoven. We can infer that John will expend resources in pursuit of those goals in the appropriate contexts, such as going to museums or concerts. As with other goals, the specific inferences are going to depend on the agent’s competing goals and resources.\n",
"\n",
"Similarly, the attitude of TRUST can be derived from our model of goal importance. If we say “John trusts Mary,” we assert that John believes that Mary will not take actions that are harmful to John. In the goal hierarchy, John believes that Mary has adopted John’s goals at some high level. The greater the trust, the higher the level. Thus, John believes that if Mary faces a conflict involving a goal of John’s, Mary will act in accordance with John’s interests. LOYALTY can be viewed as analogous to TRUST, but from the perspective of the other party. That is, you can trust someone who is loyal to you.\n",
"\n",
"There were four inference rules for TRUST in [Schank et al., 1978]. Given that A has TRUST of degree n toward B, then the following rules hold:\n",
"\n",
"• A will ask B to do tasks whose importance to A are proportional to n.\n",
"\n",
"• If B tells A something, A will give it credibility in accordance with n.\n",
"\n",
"• If n is negative, and B offers A a deal, then A will be suspicious of B in accordance with n.\n",
"\n",
"• If n is negative, A will not want to leave B alone with his possessions in accordance with n.\n",
"\n",
"As with FONDNESS, we believe that these inferences for TRUST are too specific. These inferences can be derived from a basic goal hierarchy interpretation of TRUST. Furthermore, numerous other inferences can be made concerning other goals, resources, cognitive resources, affect, and relationships.\n",
"\n",
"RESPECT is also similar to TRUST. To say “John respects Mary” implies that John shares high-level principles with Mary. That is, Mary and John have common values and ideals. The degree of respect will reflect the quantity and importance of these goals. We may also infer that John has adopted Mary’s goals.\n",
"\n",
"The inference rules for RESPECT from [Schank et al., 1978] are stated for agent A having RESPECT of degree n toward agent B.\n",
"\n",
"• A will consider B’s wants and goals against his own in accordance with n. For example, A may give B his seat if n is high positive, but would take the only seat if n is low negative.\n",
"\n",
"• A will be polite or rude to B in accordance with n.\n",
"\n",
"• A will wish to establish positive social relationships with B in accordance with n. For example, if n is high, A might wish to become B’s friend, business associate, disciple, or teacher. If such a relationship exists, and A develops a low negative RESPECT toward B, then A might move to sever the relationship.\n",
"\n",
"• A will want to be associated with B by his community in accordance with n.\n",
"\n",
"We claim that these inferences for RESPECT are incomplete, and are encompassed by our more general goal-importance model.\n",
"\n",
"We wish to point out that our approach to representing attitudes through interpersonal goal hierarchies has the benefit of avoiding another artificial scale. Earlier we argued that scales such as HEALTH(10) could be obviated through the use of goal hierarchies. Our approach has the following advantages.\n",
"\n",
"• Parsimony. The role of one knowledge representation is subsumed by another.\n",
"\n",
"• Canonicalization. Many cognitive and behavioral phenomena map onto the same canonical knowledge representation.\n",
"\n",
"• Robustness. There is a wide range of inferences available due to the disparate phenomena related to goal importance.\n",
"\n",
"These same arguments apply to using goal hierarchies as the basis for representing attitudes. The scale of the attitude is naturally reflected in the importance hierarchy.\n",
"\n",
"We can begin to explain other aspects of attitudes as well. Consider the next example.\n",
"\n",
"Example 5.4 John had a bad attitude about school.\n",
"\n",
"What is a “bad attitude?” In our model, something that is instrumental to a goal is good, and something that blocks a goal is bad. An attitude reflects the importance that one places on a particular set of goals, in this example, John’s school work. John’s bad attitude is relative to some normative set of goals. Presumably, John places less importance on his school work than his parents or teachers deem appropriate. John’s attitude is effectively blocking the achievement of goals that would be beneficial to John, although John may not think so.\n",
"\n",
"An agent may also have a good attitude, which would suggest that the agent behaves such that he pursues some normative set of goals at the appropriate level of importance.\n",
"\n",
"We have argued that a goal-importance model can encompass psychological phenomena that are often represented by scales. Thus, HEALTH(5) or FONDNESS(8) have correlates in a goal hierarchy. Another use of scales has been to describe dimensions of interpersonal relationships. Wish, Deutsch, and Kaplan [Wish et al., 1976] proposed several scales, including POSITIVE-NEGATIVE, INTIMATE-DISTANT, and DOMINANT-SUBMISSIVE. Again, we wish to find correlates for these scales in our importance model.\n",
"\n",
"First, the POSITIVE-NEGATIVE scale corresponds to the level of the adopted goals in a relationship. If agent A has a very positive relationship with B, then A has adopted B’s goals at a high level. According to the principle of importance, A is willing to expend considerable resources on behalf of B. If agent A has a moderately negative relationship with B, then A has the goal of blocking B’s goals at an intermediate level. Thus, A will not go out of his way to harm B, but may do so if given a convenient opportunity."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"Second, the INTIMATE-DISTANT scale reflects the interpersonal goal hierarchy. In this case, it is not simply the importance of the agents’ goals, but the degree to which the agents accurately understand each other’s goals. If A and B are very close, then A will have a good knowledge of B’s goals and priorities. If A and B are distant, then A may simply infer a default set of goals and priorities for B.\n",
"\n",
"Finally, the DOMINANT-SUBMISSIVE scale is indicative of the relative disparity in adopted goals between the two agents. There is an asymmetric relationship. If A is dominant over B, then A’s goals (for either A or B) will have a priority for both A and B. That is, B will have adopted A’s goals at a high level, including A’s goals for B. A, on the other hand, will not expend many resources on behalf of B.\n",
"\n",
"Our point is that scales in general have been used as a description of psychological phenomena, but not as a model of those phenomena. We suggest that goal hierarchies can both describe and model these phenomena. We propose the use of importance as a principled theoretical entity that can subsume the purely descriptive role of scales."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"## 5.5 Conversation and Stories\n",
"\n",
"Our model of interpersonal relationships tacitly assumes that the agents have some knowledge of each other’s goals and priorities. From where does this knowledge come?\n",
"\n",
"There are several possible sources, including the following.\n",
"\n",
"• Direct observation of an agent’s behavior: We see John buying a lottery ticket.\n",
"\n",
"• Statement of a goal by an agent: John tells us that he needs money.\n",
"\n",
"• Normative knowledge about goals: Everyone wants to get rich.\n",
"\n",
"We have little to say about direct observation, but shall look at the latter two sources. In particular, we shall consider the role of conversation and stories for conveying information about goals and priorities.\n",
"\n",
"First, we wish to view conversation and stories as themselves being goal-based activities. That is, there is a purpose or point behind conversation and stories. Here are some possible conversational goals.\n",
"\n",
"• Inform hearer of speaker’s goals or experiences.\n",
"\n",
"• Solicit advice from hearer.\n",
"\n",
"• Give advice to hearer.\n",
"\n",
"• Report on status of plans and goals.\n",
"\n",
"• Confirm or modify state of relationship."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"Given a case-based model of decision making, an agent will commonly rely on experience to confirm goals and plans. That is, when an agent is considering a course of action, he will weigh the alternatives against his prior experience. He must first decide what choices he has, and then decide which is the most appropriate. Interpersonal relationships in general, and conversation in particular, provide an agent with an additional source of experience. In a conversation, an agent can engage in his decision-making process out loud and effectively expand his experience with that of the hearer. That is, the hearer plays a role analogous to that of the speaker’s own attention and memory. The hearer may suggest alternatives plans. He may suggest to abandon the goal. He may offer reasons for preferring one plan or goal over another. He may be able to explain the problems or anomalies associated with a plan. In effect, the hearer provides additional cognitive resources that can be applied to the decision-making or problem-solving process.\n",
"\n",
"Given that the agent does not have direct access to the memory of the hearer who is offering advice, it is incumbent upon the hearer to provide sufficient details to allow the agent to weigh the advice properly against his own experience. Stories can be viewed as the vehicle for conveying these details.\n",
"\n",
"We realize that a model of conversation and stories will entail many additional phenomena. We merely wish to state that a model of interpersonal relationships such as that proposed here will be a necessary part of a theory of conversation and stories."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"## 5.6 Relationship Recapitulation\n",
"\n",
"• Interpersonal relationships will vary along dimensions of goal achievement, goal development, importance, and symmetry.\n",
"\n",
"• Basic types of relationships include agent/client, mentor/disciple, peers, and opponents.\n",
"\n",
"• Adopted goals are processed uniformly as individual goals, with a priority determined by the importance and context of the relationship.\n",
"\n",
"• As with the goal-based model of individual behavior, the importance model of interpersonal behavior applies to a variety of cognitive and behavioral phenomena including resource allocation, attention, memory, learning, and affect.\n",
"\n",
"• The goal adoption model of interpersonal relations suggests a normative hierarchy of relations.\n",
"\n",
"• Adversarial relationships and counterplanning are compatible with the importance model of relations.\n",
"\n",
"• Adopted secondary interpersonal goals are processed uniformly as interpersonal and individual goals, with a priority proportional to the secondary relationship.\n",
"\n",
"• The importance model of interpersonal relations accounts for the phenomenon of persuasion, and provides a more robust model than the persuade package.\n",
"\n",
"• Interpersonal attitudes, such as trust and fondness, can be represented within the importance model of interpersonal relations.\n",
"\n",
"• The importance model of interpersonal relations subsumes the use of scales as descriptive constructs.\n",
"\n",
"• The importance model of interpersonal relationships provides a foundation for a theory of conversation and stories."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "code",
"execution_count": null,
"metadata": {},
"outputs": [],
"source": []
}
],
"metadata": {
"kernelspec": {
"display_name": "Python 3 (ipykernel)",
"language": "python",
"name": "python3"
},
"language_info": {
"codemirror_mode": {
"name": "ipython",
"version": 3
},
"file_extension": ".py",
"mimetype": "text/x-python",
"name": "python",
"nbconvert_exporter": "python",
"pygments_lexer": "ipython3",
"version": "3.11.1"
}
},
"nbformat": 4,
"nbformat_minor": 4
}