Showing papers by "Cristiano Castelfranchi published in 2011"

Forgiveness: A Cognitive-Motivational Anatomy

Abstract: This work aims to identify the constituents of forgiveness in terms of the forgiver's beliefs and motivating goals. After addressing the antecedents of forgiveness—a perceived wrong—and distinguishing the notion of mere harm from that of offense, we describe the victim's typical retributive reactions—revenge and resentment—and discuss their advantages and disadvantages. Then we focus on the forgiver's mind-set, pointing to the relationship between forgiveness and acceptance of the wrong, addressing the forgiver's motivating goals, and discussing both their self-interested and altruistic implications. In so doing we also discuss the role of the forgiver's positive feelings towards the offender, arguing that, however important, they are unnecessary to forgiveness. We finally identify two kinds of forgiveness—conditional and unconditional—suggesting that they are grounded on different notions of “worth.”

Trust and relational capital

Abstract: Trust can be viewed at the same time as an instrument both for an agent selecting the right partners in order to achieve its own goals, and for an agent of being selected from other potential partners in order to establish with them a cooperation/collaboration and to take advantage from the accumulated trust. In this paper we will analyze trust as the agents' relational capital. Starting from the classical dependence network with potential partners, we introduce the analysis of what it means for an agent to be trusted and how this condition could be strategically used from it for achieving its own goals, that is, why it represents a form of power. The idea of taking another agent's point of view is especially important if we consider the amount of studies in social science that connect trust with social capital related issues. Although there is a big interest in literature about `social capital' and its powerful effects on the wellbeing of both societies and individuals, often it is not clear enough what is it the object under analysis. Individual trust capital (relational capital) and collective trust capital not only should be disentangled, but their relations are quite complicated and even conflicting. To overcome this gap, we propose a study that first attempts to understand what trust is as capital of individuals. In which sense "trust" is a capital. How this capital is built, managed and saved. In particular, how this capital is the result of the others' beliefs and goals. Then we aim to analytically study the cognitive dynamics of this object.

Cognitive Evaluations and Intuitive Appraisals: Can Emotion Models Handle Them Both?

Abstract: This chapter deals with the complex relationships between cognitive representations and processes (not reduced to “epistemic” representations but including the motivational ones: goals) and emotions. It adopts a belief–desire–intention paradigm (the explicit account of mental representations and of their “reading” in interaction), but psychologically and computationally sophisticated: for example, by a “dual-process” theory, distinguishing the “intuitive thinking” from the “deliberative thinking,” or by a probabilistic approach to the beliefs–goals network. This representation of the mental background of the emotion is also necessary for accounting for emotional interaction, which is based on mind reading, not just on emotional expressions.

Facing openness with socio-cognitive trust and categories

Abstract: Typical solutions for agents assessing trust relies on the circulation of information on the individual level, i.e. reputational images, subjective experiences, statistical analysis, etc. This work presents an alternative approach, inspired to the cognitive heuristics enabling humans to reason at a categorial level. The approach is envisaged as a crucial ability for agents in order to: (1) estimate trustworthiness of unknown trustees based on an ascribed membership to categories; (2) learn a series of emergent relations between trustees observable properties and their effective abilities to fulfill tasks in situated conditions. On such a basis, categorization is provided to recognize signs (Manifesta) through which hidden capabilities (Kripta) can be inferred. Learning is provided to refine reasoning attitudes needed to ascribe tasks to categories. A series of architectures combining categorization abilities, individual experiences and context awareness are evaluated and compared in simulated experiments.

Anticipation and Emotion

Abstract: This work tries to provide a systematic outline of the manifold relations between emotion and anticipatory activity. We first address the route from emotion to anticipation, which implies considering the anticipatory function of emotion in a twofold sense. On the one hand, emotions may mediate the relationship between a stimulus and a response, by triggering anticipatory behaviors which are not based on cognitive representations of future states or events (preparatory emotions). On the other hand, emotions may accomplish the function of signaling underlying mental states (premonitory emotions), that is, the fact of experiencing a certain emotion may induce some anticipatory belief. Then we address the route from anticipation to emotion, by considering those emotional states which are elicited by anticipatory representations (expectation-based emotions). Whereas in premonitory emotions, the latter induce some expectation, in expectation-based emotions, the causal relationship is reversed; the expectation of a certain event elicits an emotional response. Here we are in the domain of cognitive appraisal proper, with the sole restriction that the appraisal regards future events. Moreover, the route from anticipation to emotion also accounts for those emotions – such as disappointment and relief – which are elicited by the invalidation of expectations (invalidation-based emotions). Finally, we discuss a third kind of interaction between emotion and anticipatory activity, that is, the anticipation of future emotions. Emotions are here the object of anticipatory representations, rather a response to them. Two kinds of expected emotions are identified, “cold” expectations versus “hot” expectations of emotions (which include some anticipated feeling), and their role in decision making is discussed.

Trust: nature and dynamics

Abstract: Trust is a complex notion -- with various components and dimensions-, and a multi-role relation: Trust (x y t G c); x trusts y as for action/task t useful for goal G, in context c.It is an attitude, a disposition towards another agent (natural, technical, or social) on which our "welfare", that is, the realization of some goal of us, depends. This attitude makes us disposed to expose ourselves to failure or damage by relying on y for satisfying our goal.This attitude towards y can be based just on feelings of safety and perceived benevolence, or on feelings due to the analogical evocation of previous or similar positive experiences; or it is more "rational", or better "reason-based", grounded on some specific beliefs, evaluations, and expectations about y, that justify our reliance. On the basis of this positive expectation and evaluation we decide to depend on y.Thus, trust also is a decision and an act: the act of trusting y as for t, of exposing ourselves to dependence. And it also becomes a specific relation between x and y. Trust in y (on the basis of the strength of our beliefs or feelings) can be sufficient or insufficient for our decision to delegate; depending on the perceived risk and possible harm.The evaluation of y, on which the expectation is based, has two basic components: (i) y's "competence", efficacy, expertise: "Is y really able and in condition to perform the expected 'action' and produce the desired outcome?" (ii) y's "willingness": "Will y actually perform the needed action?", "Is y predictable, reliable?", "Is y really willing to do the expected action?". Clearly these two kinds of evaluation are rather independent: y can be very well disposed but not really skilled; or y can be really able but not credible.Moreover, trust as judgment implies the 'internal attribution' to y of skills, qualities, 'virtues'; but it also imply some evaluation about the 'external' favorable or adverse contextual conditions for y's action. This is why not necessarily y's failure entails a decreasing of y's trustworthiness; it might not be his fault, but just due to 'external' interferences.Trust in not only 'social', addressed towards other persons; it can be also towards some process or mechanism (I can trust or not a given elevator), and technology: how much effective and good is it as for its service; how much reliable and predictable; how much accessible and friendly;...? The opposite (but complementary) side of trust is the perceived risk and the perceived unreliability or unmanageability of the technology.Trust dynamics is a very important and complex issue, with many aspects.On the one side, there is the problem of trust transitivity: if x trust y, and y trust z, will x trust z? Not automatically: it depends on the specific object of those trust relations. If x trust y "as good evaluator of t performances" and y trust z as for t, then x will trust z as for t.On the other side, there is the general problem of trust transfer:(a) If x trust y as for t, will x trust y also for another task t'? It depends: do the qualities, skills, needed for successfully performing t overlapping with the quality needed for t'? If "Yes", the trustworthiness of y as for t is a good predictor of y's trustworthiness also for t'.(b) If x trusts y as for t, will x trust z for t? It depends on the similarity between y and z: does z have the same qualities of y necessary for t?Another important dynamics is trust as self-fulfilling prophecy. Trust is an expectation, but this expectation can affect the expected outcome, both its probability and quality. In fact, on the one side x's positive evaluation of y can increase y's commitment, effort, self-esteem, etc. and influence the quality of y's performance. On the other side, the fact that x is or becomes dependent on y can increase y's 'benevolence' or responsibility towards x. In general, it is well known that trust can induce trust and reciprocation, while diffidence elicits diffidence.Finally, those dynamics can be taken into account even in x's evaluation and decision to trust: perhaps x's trust in y would not be sufficient, but x predicts that his act of trusting y will increase y's reliability and performance, thus trust becomes enough and x decides to trust/rely on y.Trust technology. Trust is a very dialectic and dynamic phenomenon, and it should acquire the same level of quality with technology. There are two different (but not independent) perspectives on that:(i) A technology really able to support social trust relations and to create new trust dimensions among humans.(ii) A trustworthy technology deserving and eliciting trust disposition, which is not at all just a matter of "security", like engineers currently believes.

Reasoning with Categories for Trusting Strangers: a Cognitive Architecture

Abstract: A crucial issue for agents in open systems is the ability to filter out information sources in order to build an image of their counterparts, upon which a subjective evaluation of trust as a promoter of interactions can be assessed. While typical solutions discern relevant information sources by relying on previous experiences or reputational images, this work presents an alternative approach based on the cognitive ability to: (i) analyze heterogeneous information sources along different dimensions; (ii) ascribe qualities to unknown counterparts based on reasoning over abstract classes or categories; and, (iii) learn a series of emergent relationships between particular properties observable on other agents and their effective abilities to fulfill tasks. A computational architecture is presented allowing cognitive agents to dynamically assess trust based on a limited set of observable properties, namely explicitly readable signals (Manifesta) through which it is possible to infer hidden properties and capabilities (Krypta), which finally regulate agents' behavior in concrete work environments. Experimental evaluation discusses the effectiveness of trustor agents adopting different strategies to delegate tasks based on categorization.