IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eurjdp/v8y2020i1d10.1007_s40070-019-00109-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An affective decision-making model with applications to social robotics

Author

Listed:
  • Si Liu

    (Instituto de Ciencias Matemáticas (ICMAT-CSIC))

  • David Ríos Insua

    (Instituto de Ciencias Matemáticas (ICMAT-CSIC))

Abstract

With the proliferation of information and communication technologies, especially with recent developments in Artificial Intelligence, social robots at home and the workplace are no longer being treated as lifeless and emotionless, leading to proposals which aim at incorporating affective elements within agents. Advances in areas such as affective decision-making and affective computing drive this interest. Our motivation in this paper is to use affection as a basic element within a decision-making process to facilitate robotic agents providing more seemingly human responses. We use earlier research in cognitive science and psychology to provide a model for an autonomous agent that makes decisions partly influenced by affective factors when interacting with humans and other agents. The factors included are emotions, mood, personality traits, and activation sets in relation with impulsive behavior. We describe several simulations with our model to study and compare its performance when facing various types of users. Through them, we essentially showcase that our model allows for a powerful agent design mechanism regulating its behavior and provides greater decision-making adaptivity when compared to emotionless agents and simpler emotional models. We conclude describing potential uses of our model in several application areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Si Liu & David Ríos Insua, 2020. "An affective decision-making model with applications to social robotics," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 8(1), pages 13-39, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eurjdp:v:8:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s40070-019-00109-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40070-019-00109-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40070-019-00109-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40070-019-00109-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Rios Insua & David Banks & Jesus Rios, 2016. "Modeling Opponents in Adversarial Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 742-755, April.
    2. Fehr-Duda, Helga & Epper, Thomas & Bruhin, Adrian & Schubert, Renate, 2011. "Risk and rationality: The effects of mood and decision rules on probability weighting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(1-2), pages 14-24, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Si Liu & David Ríos Insua, 2020. "Group Decision Making with Affective Features," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 843-869, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bier, Vicki & Gutfraind, Alexander, 2019. "Risk analysis beyond vulnerability and resilience – characterizing the defensibility of critical systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 626-636.
    2. Niculaescu, Corina E. & Sangiorgi, Ivan & Bell, Adrian R., 2023. "Does personal experience with COVID-19 impact investment decisions? Evidence from a survey of US retail investors," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    3. Cheng‐Kuang Wu & Yi‐Ming Chen & Dachrahn Wu & Ching‐Lin Chi, 2020. "A Game Theory Approach for Assessment of Risk and Deployment of Police Patrols in Response to Criminal Activity in San Francisco," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 534-549, March.
    4. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    5. Yan, Jubo & Kniffin, Kevin M. & Kunreuther, Howard C. & Schulze, William D., 2020. "The roles of reason and emotion in private and public responses to terrorism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 778-796.
    6. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    7. Matthieu Gilson & Kim Oosterlinck & Andrey Ukhov, 2015. "Time-Varying Risk Aversion during World War II: Evidence from Belgian Lottery Bond Prices," Working Papers CEB 15-031, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2013. "Eliciting risk and time preferences under induced mood states," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 18-27.
    9. Matteo M. Marini, 2021. "20 years of emotions and risky choices in the lab: A meta-analysis," Working Papers 2021/04, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    10. Jetter, Michael & Magnusson, Leandro M. & Roth, Sebastian, 2020. "Becoming sensitive: Males’ risk and time preferences after the 2008 financial crisis," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    11. Glimcher, Paul W. & Tymula, Agnieszka A., 2023. "Expected subjective value theory (ESVT): A representation of decision under risk and certainty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 110-128.
    12. Maria De Paola & Francesca Gioia & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2013. "Overconfidence, Omens And Emotions: Results From A Field Experiment," Working Papers 201303, Università della Calabria, Dipartimento di Economia, Statistica e Finanza "Giovanni Anania" - DESF.
    13. Nicholas Apergis & Tasawar Hayat & Tareq Saeed, 2019. "The Role of Happiness in Financial Decisions: Evidence from Financial Portfolio Choice and Five European Countries," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 47(3), pages 343-360, September.
    14. William N. Caballero & Ethan Gharst & David Banks & Jeffery D. Weir, 2023. "Multipolar Security Cooperation Planning: A Multiobjective, Adversarial-Risk-Analysis Approach," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 16-39, March.
    15. Vicki L. Bogan & Angela R. Fertig, 2013. "Portfolio Choice and Mental Health," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 17(3), pages 955-992.
    16. Hunt, Kyle & Zhuang, Jun, 2024. "A review of attacker-defender games: Current state and paths forward," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 313(2), pages 401-417.
    17. Delis, Manthos D. & Mylonidis, Nikolaos, 2015. "Trust, happiness, and households’ financial decisions," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 82-92.
    18. Theresa Treffers & Philipp D. Koellinger & Arnold Picot, 2016. "Do Affective States Influence Risk Preferences?," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 17(3), pages 309-335, December.
    19. Vincent Laferrière & David Staubli & Christian Thöni, 2023. "Explaining Excess Entry in Winner-Take-All Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 1050-1069, February.
    20. Despoina Alempaki & Emina Canic & Timothy L. Mullett & William J. Skylark & Chris Starmer & Neil Stewart & Fabio Tufano, 2019. "Reexamining How Utility and Weighting Functions Get Their Shapes: A Quasi-Adversarial Collaboration Providing a New Interpretation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4841-4862, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eurjdp:v:8:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s40070-019-00109-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.