Polarization and bipolar probabilistic argumentation frameworks

CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2012 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Discussion among individuals about a given issue often induces polarization and bipolarization effects, i.e. individuals radicalize their initial opinion towards either the same or opposite directions. Experimental psychologists have put forward Persuasive Arguments Theory as a clue for explaining polarization. PAT claims that adding novel and persuasive arguments pro or contra the debated issue is the major cause for polarization. Recent developments in abstract argumentation provide the tools for capturing these intuitions on a formal basis. Here Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks are employed as a tool for encoding the information of agents in a debate relative to a given issue a. A probabilistic extension of BAF allows to encode the likelihood of the opinions pro or contra a before and after information exchange. It is shown, by a straightforward example, how these measures provide the basis to capture the intuitions of PAT.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 86,377

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Understanding Group Polarization with Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks.Carlo Proietti - 2016 - Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 287.
The dynamics of group polarization.Carlo Proietti - 2017 - In Alexandru Baltag, Jeremy Seligman & Tomoyuki Yamada (eds.), Logic, Rationality, and Interaction. LORI 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10455. Springer. pp. 195-208.
Abduction in argumentation frameworks.Chiaki Sakama - 2018 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 28 (2-3):218-239.
Probabilistic Arguments in the Epistemological Approach to Argumentation.Christoph Lumer - 2011 - In Frans H. Van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden & Gordon Mitchell (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rozenberg; Sic Sat. pp. 1141-1154.
Towards a Model of Argument Strength for Bipolar Argumentation Graphs.Erich Rast - 2018 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1):31-62.
Persistent Disagreement and Polarization in a Bayesian Setting.Michael Nielsen & Rush T. Stewart - 2021 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (1):51-78.


Added to PP

3 (#1,461,333)

6 months
1 (#866,649)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Carlo Proietti
University of Amsterdam

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.Dan Sperber - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):57.

Add more references