Carnegie Mellon University
Research Showcase @ CMU
Computer Science Department
School of Computer Science
1979
Computer models of human personality traits
Jaime G.(Jaime Guillermo) Carbonell
Carnegie Mellon University
Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.cmu.edu/compsci
This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Computer Science at Research Showcase @ CMU. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Computer Science Department by an authorized administrator of Research Showcase @ CMU. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
NOTICE WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS:
The copyright law of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) governs the making
of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Any copying of this
document without permission of its author may be prohibited by law.
^1
CMU-CS-79-154
Computer Models of Human Personality Traits
Jaime G. Carbonell
Carnegie-Mellon
University
Computer Science Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
November,
15213
1979
This research was sponsored in part by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DOD), Monitored by
the Office of Naval Research under contract NGQG14-75-C-1111, and in part by ARPA Order No. 3597, monitored
by the Air Force Avionics Laboratory under Contract F33615-78-C-15S1. The views and conclusions contained in
this document are those of the author, and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either
expressed or implied, of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the U.S. Government.
ITable of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
r
U
I
1
ii
W h y Analyze Personality Traits?
W h a t Information D o e s a Personality Trait C o n v e y ?
H o w P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s M a y Be R e p r e s e n t e d
G o a l T r e e s R e p r e s e n t i n g Personality Traits
H o w P e r s o n a l i t y Traits Constrain the Application o f
Counterplanning Strategies
Combining P e r s o n a l i t y Traits
R e a c t i o n s Upon Failure of S t r a t e g i e s
Conclusion
References
Planning
and
1
2
6
8
18
23
25
28
29
1
Computer Models of Human Personality Traits
Jaime G. Carbonell
Carnegie-Mellon University
Department of Computer S c i e n c e
O c t o b e r , 1979
Abstract
A g o a l - b a s e d a n a l y s i s of human personality traits is p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e
o b j e c t i v e o f d e v e l o p i n g a comprehensive simulation model. It Is s h o w n
t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g trait attributions is an integral p a r t o f s t o r y
u n d e r s t a n d i n g and t h e r e f o r e much of natural language p r o c e s s i n g . T h e
model o f p e r s o n a l t y traits is d e r i v e d from the goal t r e e s o f t h e P O L I T I C S
s y s t e m , t h e notion o f social p r o t o t y p e s , and planning/counterplanning
strategies.
1
KEY WORDS AND T O P I C S : p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e ,
goal t r e e s , s t o r y understanding, inference, h e u r i s t i c s .
1. W h y Analyze Personality Traits?
U n d e r s t a n d i n g s t o r i e s r e q u i r e s information and reasoning about t h e s i t u a t i o n , t h e
causal
s t r u c t u r e o f t h e e v e n t s , and the c h a r a c t e r s In t h e s t o r y . S c h a n k
[12],
C u l l l n g f o r d [ 6 ] , Rumelhart [ 1 1 ] , and Beaugrande and C o l b y [ 1 ] h a v e a n a l y z e d
narrative
s t r u c t u r e o f s t o r i e s and d e v e l o p e d means of automating t h e
the
analysis
p r o c e s s . S c h a n k a n d A b e l s o n [ 1 3 ] , Wiiensky [ 1 6 ] , and Schmidt a n d S r i d h a r a n [ 1 5 ]
d e v e l o p e d m e a n s o f Inferring the goals and plans of t h e c h a r a c t e r s In a s t o r y f r o m
their
actions.
Both
the
narrative
structures
and the
goals
and
plans
of
the
This research was sponsored in part by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DOD), Monitored by
the Office of Naval Research under contract N00014-75-C-1111, and in part by ARPA Order No. 3597, monitored
by the Air Force Avionics Laboratory under Contract F33615-78-C-1511. The views and conclusions contained in
this document are those of the author, and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either
expressed or Implied, of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the U.S. Government.
characters
a r e c r u c i a l In Integrating
the Information c o n t a i n e d In s t o r i e s
into
a
c o h e r e n t memory r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . S u c h memory s t r u c t u r e s are n e c e s s a r y t o a n s w e r
q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e s t o r y in much the same w a y that people a p p e a r t o r e a s o n a b o u t
the stories they read.
C h a r a c t e r d e v e l o p m e n t , h o w e v e r , is an important a s p e c t of s t o r y
that
has
been
largely
ignored b y Artificial Intelligence
understanding
researchers.
A
person
r e a d i n g a s t o r y I d e n t i f i e s w i t h one or more c h a r a c t e r s d e p e n d i n g o n w h e t h e r
the
characters
and
a r e h e r o s , villains, compassionate, intelligent, u n s c r u p u l o u s , e t c . ,
d e p e n d i n g o n h o w t h e c h a r a c t e r ' s personality r e l a t e s to t h e r e a d e r ' s s e l f - i m a g e a n d
t o o t h e r p e o p l e h e k n o w s in real life. Furthermore, k n o w l e d g e o f t h e c h a r a c t e r s a n d
their
personality
understanding
language
to i n t e r p r e t their actions
character
stories.
development:
analyze
helps
Here
development
we
deal
and induce
their
goals.
is an integral p a r t o f p r o c e s s i n g
with
the
most
simple
form
of
Thus,
natural
character
t h e attribution of personality traits to a c t o r s in simple s t o r i e s .
personality
traits
in terms of
personal
goal t r e e s
and
We
predispositions
t o w a r d s a p p l y i n g c e r t a i n c l a s s e s of planning and x o u n t e r p t a n n t n g s t r a t e g i e s . G o a l
t r e e s a n d c o u n t e r p l a n n l n g s t r a t e g i e s w e r e d e v e l o p e d t o model Ideological b e l i e f s In
the POLITICS system [ 3 ] .
2. What Information Does a Personality Trait Convey?
C o n s i d e r a n e x a m p l e o f p e r s o n a l i t y - t r a i t attribution In t h e following s t o r y .
(1)
J o h n 19 v e r y a m b i t i o u 9 .
He abandoned h i s i n v a l i d mother, worked v e r y h a r d
a t h i s j o b , and badmouthed h i s coworkers* J o h n was
e l a t e d when t h e b o s s promoted him.
W h a t d o e s it m e a n for s o m e b o d y to be ambitious?
a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f an over-ambitious p e r s o n .
John's a c t i o n s In e x a m p l e 1
John's emotional r e a c t i o n t o
his
p r o m o t i o n a l s o c h a r a c t e r i z e s the t y p e of behavior t h a t one may e x p e c t from a n
a m b i t i o u s p e r s o n . W h a t h a p p e n s if w e use d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s t o
define
John's character?
(2)
C o n s i d e r t h e following s t o r y :
J o h n i s v e r y compassionate.
He abandoned h i 9 i n v a l i d mother, worked v e r y h a r d
a t h i 9 j o b , and badmouthed h i s c o w o r k e r s . J o h n wa9
e l a t e d when t h e bo99 promoted him.
S t o r y 2 is not c o n s i s t e n t . W h y not? Compassionate people do not a b a n d o n I n v a l i d
m o t h e r s . Badmouthing c o w o r k e r s does not seem to b e in c h a r a c t e r w i t h J o h n b e i n g
c o m p a s s i o n a t e . T h e only w a y w e could interpret s t o r y 2 Is t o s a y t h a t J o h n m u s t
h a v e b e e n a c t i n g " o u t of c h a r a c t e r " for some unknown r e a s o n . This s u g g e s t s t h a t
the
meaning
of
characteristic
deviation
words
types
between
describing
personality
traits
are
related
to
certain
of b e h a v i o r . In f a c t , personality t r a i t s o f t e n e x p r e s s
socially
defined
normative
behavior
and
the
the
particular
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c b e h a v i o r of an individual.
B e f o r e w e a n a l y z e t h e meaning and the s u b j e c t i v e nature o f p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s ,
l e t u s s e e w h y this is an important issue that requires our i n v e s t i g a t i o n . T h e r e a r e
p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a s o n s that s u g g e s t that the w a y people talk about p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s
m a y b e a n I n t e r e s t i n g s u b j e c t of s t u d y . Here w e f o c u s on t h e r e l e v a n c e o f l i n g u i s t i c
d e s c r i p t i o n s o f p e r s o n a l i t y traits to understanding n a r r a t i v e e v e n t s .
Consider the
following story.
( 3 ) - Bill w a s v e r y b r a v e , but his brother J o h n w a s v e r y c o w a r d l y . O n e
n i g h t t h e t w o b r o t h e r s w e r e walking b y the road w h e n a m a s k e d b a n d i t
s u r p r i s e d t h e m . T h e y o u n g e r brother panicked and ran headlong into t h e
f o r e s t w h e r e h e w a s lost, n e v e r to be s e e n again. T h e e l d e r b r o t h e r
f o u g h t o f f t h e bandit, and, in the p r o c e s s , r e c o v e r e d t h e long l o s t r o y a l
s a p p h i r e , s t o l e n y e a r s earlier. T h e king r e w a r d e d him handsomely*
Q U E S T I O N : Whom did the king r e w a r d ?
A p e r s o n r e a d i n g t h e a b o v e s t o r y has little trouble in a n s w e r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n :
C l e a r l y , t h e king r e w a r d e d Bill. H o w e v e r , it is not particularly e a s y t o s e e h o w o n e
goes
about
formulating
the
answer.
In order t o a n s w e r
this
question
without
s u b s t a n t i a l e f f o r t , t h e r e f e r e n t of "him" in the last s e n t e n c e o f 3 must h a v e b e e n
d e t e r m i n e d while the story was understood.
Determining this r e f e r e n t is a
very
d i f f i c u l t t a s k . M a n y p e o p l e h a v e w o r k e d on the r e f e r e n c e problem ( e . g . , C h a r n i a k
[ 5 ] , R o s s [ 1 0 ] , W H e n s k y [ 1 6 ] , Cullingford [ 6 ] ) , but resolving this p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n t
requires
a c o m p l e t e understanding of the s t o r y . No simple rule will s e r v e .
For
i n s t a n c e , t h e l a s t mentioned c h a r a c t e r in the s t o r y b e f o r e t h e w o r d " h i m " Is t h e
b a n d i t , b u t this is o b v i o u s l y not the c o r r e c t r e f e r e n t .
T h e f i r s t s t e p In determining the r e f e r e n t is to u n d e r s t a n d t h e c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s
a m o n g t h e a c t i o n s In t h e s t o r y . In order to establish a c a u s a l relation b e t w e e n t h e
king r e w a r d i n g s o m e b o d y and the sapphire being r e c o v e r e d , one must I n f e r t h a t t h e
sapphire
was
r e t u r n e d t o the king b y the elder brother. A s t o r y
understanding
s y s t e m s u c h a s PAM [ 1 6 ] makes this kind of i n f e r e n c e and the I n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e
king f e l t i n d e b t e d t o t h e elder brother. The i n d e b t e d n e s s s t a t e may h a v e
caused
t h e king t o r e w a r d t h e elder brother. If the s t o r y is thus u n d e r s t o o d o n e Is a b l e t o
e s t a b l i s h t h a t " h i m " r e f e r s to the elder brother. This, h o w e v e r , is o n l y half o f t h e
t a s k . H o w d o w e k n o w t h a t Bill is the elder brother who d e s e r v e s t h e r e w a r d ?
In
order
to
determine
w h i c h brother is which w e
must u s e t h e
information
c o n t a i n e d in t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r traits. One brother Is b r a v e ; t h e o t h e r is
cowardly.
Running
away
in the
face
of
danger
Is
a
characteristic
behavior
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c o w a r d l y p e o p l e . Fighting bandits, or o t h e r w i s e risking o n e ' s life f o r
a w o r t h y c a u s e is t h e t y p e of behavior c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of b r a v e r y . T h e r e f o r e ,
we
d e t e r m i n e t h a t Bill, t h e b r a v e one, must h a v e b e e n the elder b r o t h e r w h o f o u g h t t h e
b a n d i t a n d r e c o v e r e d t h e sapphire. This determination requires k n o w l e d g e
about
s o m e t y p e s o f a c t i o n s t h a t are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of b r a v e r y and o t h e r a c t i o n s t h a t a r e
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f c o w a r d i c e . T h u s , w e n e e d to know, or b e able t o i n f e r , t y p i c a l
b e h a v i o r s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r traits. W e n e e d t o a n s w e r t h e g e n e r a l
q u e s t i o n : If a c t o r X has c h a r a c t e r trait P, is he likely t o do a c t i o n A In s i t u a t i o n S ? I t
s e e m s , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t an investigation of personality traits and t h e i r
associated
t y p i c a l b e h a v i o r o u g h t t o b e a worthwhile pursuit.
L e t u s c o n s i d e r a couple of e v e n t s w h e r e knowledge a b o u t p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s Is
n e c e s s a r y t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e actions of the c h a r a c t e r s .
We present two
events
t h a t d i f f e r o n l y in t h e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the primary a c t o r . T h e d i f f e r e n c e in t h e
a c t o r ' s p e r s o n a l i t y trait a c c o u n t s for a d i f f e r e n c e in t h e probable meaning o f t h e
unknown word "tolliked".
(4)
J o h n was a v e r y g e n e r o u s p e r s o n . Uhen the c h a r i t y
d r i v e a s k e d him f o r a c o n t r i b u t i o n he put h i s hand
o n h i s w a l l e t and t o l l i k e d t h e i r r e q u e s t .
(5)
J o h n was a s u s p i c i o u s m i s e r . Uhen the c h a r i t y d r i v e
d r i v e a s k e d him f o r a c o n t r i b u t i o n he put h i 9 hand
o n h i 9 w a l l e t and t o l l i k e d t h e i r r e q u e s t .
!
QUESTION:
U h a t d o e s - " t o I l i k e d " mean?
W e c a n n o t b e s u r e of t h e meaning of "tolliked" In e i t h e r e x a m p l e , b u t s t o r y
4
s u g g e s t s a v e r y d i f f e r e n t meaning for "tolliked" than 5. G e n e r o u s p e o p l e a r e u s u a l l y
willing
to
share
some of their p o s s e s s i o n s or their time w i t h p e o p l e
in
need.
T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e a d e r of 4 might e x p e c t John to r e s p o n d in a p o s i t i v e manner t o t h e
c h a r i t y r e q u e s t . T h e f a c t that he put his hand on his wallet c a n t h e n b e I n t e r p r e t e d
a s a p r e c o n d i t i o n t o giving money to the charity, thus fulfilling their r e q u e s t . In l i g h t
o f t h e s e e x p e c t a t i o n s , w e c a n determine that "tolliked" p r o b a b l y means " c o m p l i e d
w i t h " o r " f u l f i l l e d " T h u s , t h e meaning of "tolliked" is p o s t u l a t e d in a l a r g e p a r t b y
the
type
of
behavior
one
might
expect
from
a
generous
person
under
the
c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f s t o r y 4.
What
a b o u t t h e meaning o f "tolliked" in s t o r y 5 ? M i s e r s d o n o t s h a r e
possessions
w i t h a n y b o d y . Suspicious people distrust t h e
apparent
their
motives
of
o t h e r s . T h u s , t h e r e a d e r of 5 will e x p e c t that John does not w a n t t o g i v e m o n e y t o
t h e c h a r i t y a n d t h a t he may mistrust the motives of the p e r s o n asking f o r a c h a r i t y
c o n t r i b u t i o n . T h e s e e x p e c t a t i o n s may lead the r e a d e r t o i n t e r p r e t J o h n
reaching
t o w a r d his w a l l e t a s a p r e c a u t i o n for any tricks that he may s u s p e c t on t h e p a r t o f
t h e c h a r i t y d r i v e p e r s o n . T h e f a c t that J o h n is a miser and the a b o v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
o f r e a c h i n g f o r his w a l l e t s u g g e s t the same c o u r s e of action for J o h n t o f o l l o w : J o h n
6
w i l l n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e c h a r i t y r e q u e s t . In this c a s e , " t o l l i k e d " t a k e s
on
the
m e a n i n g o f " d e n i e d " or " d i s m i s s e d " . This meaning of "tolliked" Is quite d i f f e r e n t f r o m
t h e meaning s u g g e s t e d b y s t o r y 4. The only d i f f e r e n c e in t h e t w o s t o r i e s is t h a t
different
personality
understanding
probable
traits
personality
behaviors
were
attributed
to
John.
Hence,
traits is important for generating
we
see
expectations
that
about
a n d , in some c a s e s , postulating t h e meaning o f u n k n o w n
or
ambiguous words.
3*
H o w Personality Traits May
We
might
consider
defining
Be Represented
personality
traits,
such
as
"ambitious"
and
" c o m p a s s i o n a t e " , b y listing the s e t of behaviors c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h a t t r a i t . R e c a l l
J o h n ' s b e h a v i o r in s t o r y
1. All his actions are, in a s e n s e , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f
an
a m b i t i o u s p e r s o n , but w h a t do w e do with actions that are not c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a
p a r t i c u l a r t r a i t ? For I n s t a n c e , neither abandoning one's invalid mother nor w o r k i n g
very
hard
at one's
Job are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
actions of a c o m p a s s i o n a t e
person.
H o w e v e r , t h e former a c t i o n is definitely uncharacteristic of c o m p a s s i o n , w h i l e t h e
l a t t e r a c t i o n Is n e u t r a l w i t h r e s p e c t to being compassionate. T h u s , if w e a r e
to
d e f i n e c h a r a c t e r t r a i t s b y listing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c actions, w e should also list a c t i o n s
t h a t a r e t y p i c a l l y u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the particular trait.
W e m u s t t a k e into a c c o u n t the monumental nature of t h e task If w e a r e t o l i s t all
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a n d n o n - c h a r a c t e r i s t i c actions for e a c h c h a r a c t e r t r a i t . T h e r e a r e , in
e s s e n c e , infinite numbers of actions that can be c l a s s i f i e d as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
or
u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r e a c h personality trait. W e will t r y to narrow t h e problem b y o n l y
c l a s s i f y i n g g e n e r a l t y p e s o f actions. For instance, consider a v e r y i n c o m p l e t e l i s t o f
J o b s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y a s p i r e d b y an ambitious p e r s o n : p r e s i d e n t o f a c o m p a n y , t r i a l
l a w y e r , r e a l - e s t a t e king, shipping magnate, Governor of California, a d v i s o r t o t h e
P r e s i d e n t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , and movie s t a r . All of t h e s e o c c u p a t i o n s
entail
p o w e r , w e a l t h , a n d s o c i a l r e s p e c t , to different d e g r e e s . T h e r e f o r e , a u s e f u l w a y o f
c l a s s i f y i n g t h e s e j o b s Is b y the d e g r e e to which t h e y imply high s o c i a l s t a t u s , p o w e r
and wealth.
T h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n enables us to h a v e only one e n t r y o n t h e l i s t o f
t y p i c a l a c t i o n s o f an ambitious p e r s o n : He w a n t s a job t h a t maximizes t h e s e t h r e e
q u a l i t i e s . Similarly w e c a n generalize some other actions t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e a m b i t i o n .
O u r l i s t o f t y p i c a l a c t i o n s and w a n t s remains somewhat cumbersome in l e n g t h . T a b l e
1 is a n i n c o m p l e t e list o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a c t i o n s a n d w a n t s o f
a n ambitious p e r s o n .
I
CHARACTERISTIC
AMBI TIOUS
+—.
ACTIONS I UNCHARACTERISTIC ACTIONS
11) N e g l e c t i n g r e l a t i v e s
I
i n time of need.
12) W a n t i n g a j o b w i t h as
I
much p o w e r , r e s p e c t and
I
w e a l t h as p o s s i b l e .
13) W a n t i n g t o c o n s t a n t l y
I
improve o n e ' s present
I
Job*.
14) U s i n g f r i e n d s t o f u r t h e r
I
o n e ' s own e n d s , t h e n
I
d i s c a r d i n g them.
15) B a d m o u t h i n g c o m p e t i t o r s .
16) W a n t i n g s o c i a l r e s p e c t
I
and r e c o g n i t i o n .
17) Want an i m p r e s s i v e h o u s e .
18) Want a l u x u r y o r s p o r t s
I
car.
13) Want a s o c i a l l y
I
s u c c e s s f u l spouse.
110) D i s h o n e s t b u s i n e s s
I
deals.
111) S e e k i n g t o be i n the
I
presence of successful
I
people.
T a b l e 1:
Characteristic
II)
I
12)
I
I
13)
Anonymous d o n a t i o n s t o
charity.
S t e p p i n g down to l e t a more
q u a l i f i e d p e r s o n assume a
p o s i t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
A v o i d i n g h a r d work t h a t
leads to s e l f b e t t e r m e n t .
14) H e l p i n g o t h e r s a t c o s t t o
I
self.
15) Not b e i n g c o n c e r n e d w i t h
p e r s o n a l appearance i n the
I
p r e s e n c e o f o n e ' s boss o r
I
social peers.
I
16) B e i n g c o n t e n t e d w i t h o n e ' s
a s t achievements i n l i f e ,
I
17) e I i nqu i sh i ng soc i a I
s t a t u s , wealth or power.
I
18) P l a c i n g h o n e s t y above s e l f
betterment.
I
13) T o l e r a n t o f o t h e r p e o p l e ' s
I
fauIts.
110) Happy a t a n o t h e r ' s
success.
I
B
a c t i o n s o f an a m b i t i o u s p e r s o n .
T h e s e t o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c actions and w a n t s of an ambitious p e r s o n is b a s e d o n
u n d e r l y i n g p e r s o n a l motivation. Wanting an impressive h o u s e , a l u x u r y or s p o r t s , c a r
a n d a j o b t h a t y i e l d s s u b s t a n t i a l w e a l t h are i n s t a n c e s of acquisition g o a l s ( A - g o a l s ) .
Being
r e s p e c t e d and p o w e r f u l are instances of A - s c o n t g o a l s . ( A - s o c i a l
control
m e a n s d e s i r i n g an i n c r e a s e in one's social s t a t u r e . In addition t o a c q u i s i t i o n g o a l s ,
t h e r e a r e o t h e r t y p e s o f goals s u c h as p r e s e r v a t i o n goals ( P - g o a l s ) a n d e n j o y m e n t
g o a l s ( E - g o a l s ) . T h e goal t a x o n o m y is borrowed from Schank and A b e l s o n [ 1 3 ] . )
T h u s , o n e w a y o f analyzing personality traits is b y associating w i t h e a c h t r a i t t h e
8
g o a l s p e o p l e d e s c r i b e d b y that trait are likely to h a v e .
e s t a b l i s h e d , certain behaviors
Once t h e s e goals
can be inferred in particular s i t u a t i o n s , s u c h
are
as
s t o r i e s 3 , 4 and 5, b y a s t o r y understander applying planning and c o u n t e r p J a n n i n g
s t r a t e g i e s . S i n c e w e h a v e d e v e l o p e d mechanisms for understanding g o a l
events
( e . g . , PAM [ 1 6 ] and POLITICS [ 3 , 2 ] ) , it seems quite fruitful t o
based
reduce
p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s t o t h e pursuit of certain t y p e s of goals.
4. Goal Trees Representing Personality Traits
C o n s i d e r t h e p r o c e s s of understanding a s t o r y starting w i t h t h e following initial
segment:
(6)
J o h n i s a v e r y i n q u i s i t i v e and uncompromising
p e r s o n . He i s a l s o r a t h e r t h r i f t y i n h i s
personal a f f a i r s . . .
T h e r e h a v e b e e n no actions thus far in the s t o r y , nor a n y p h y s i c a l o r t e m p o r a l
s e t t i n g t h a t h e l p s t h e u n d e r s t a n d e r establish the situational c o n t e x t . Y e t , J o h n ' s
personality
knows
t r a i t s p r o v i d e a g o a l - e x p e c t a t i o n setting. T h a t Is, t h e
t h e following Information from the a b o v e fragment of 6:
understander
John's goal
of
i n c r e a s i n g his k n o w l e d g e about most matters is a goal of v e r y high i m p o r t a n c e . W e
d e n o t e t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge goal as A - k n o w ( J o h n , X , + ) . ( T h e "•
11
means J o h n
w a n t s k n o w l e d g e about X . A " - " would signify that John's goal is t o a c t i v e l y a v o i d
knowing
a b o u t X , and a " 0 " signifies that John ignores n e w k n o w l e d g e
X . T h u s , if w e k n o w t h a t M a r y is apathetic, w e mean A - k n o w ( M a r y , X , 0 ) . )
about
The fact
t h a t J o h n is t h r i f t y tells us that he also has the goal of p r e s e r v i n g his m o n e y . In
f a c t , t h e w o r d " t h r i f t y " s t a t e s a relationship b e t w e e n the P - m o n e y goal a n d t h e s e t
o f A - g o a l s t h a t c a n b e accomplished b y spending money. J o h n holds t h e g o a l o f
P - m o n e y t o b e more Important than most s u c h A - g o a l s .
T h e f a c t t h a t J o h n Is uncompromising is somewhat more difficult t o r e p r e s e n t In
t e r m s o f J o h n ' s g o a l s . No s p e c i f i c goal is defined b y a p e r s o n being uncompromising.
T h i s p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t applies to all of John's goals. An uncompromising p e r s o n is o n e
g
w h o d o e s n o t a b a n d o n a n y goal In the f a c e of opposition from a n o t h e r p a r t y ; t h a t I s ,
a p e r s o n w h o will not y i e l d to someone else's goals. Being uncompromising
also
c a r r i e s t h e implication t h a t one holds the goals of o t h e r s t o b e l e s s important t h a n Is
n o r m a l l y t h e c a s e . T h u s , this personality trait modifies the entire s e t o f g o a l s t h a t a
p e r s o n h a s , r a t h e r t h a n establishing a single s p e c i f i c goal.
Since
most
personality
traits
describe
deviations
from
a
culturally-defined
n o r m a t i v e p e r s o n , w e know that John's A - k n o w goal is much more Important t o him
t h a n o t h e r p e o p l e ' s A - k n o w goals are to them. Similarly, w e know t h a t his P - m o n e y
g o a l is a little more important to him than is generally the c a s e . W e may a l s o I n f e r
t h a t J o h n ' s A - g o a l of things t h a t c o s t money may b e a little l e s s Important t o him
t h a n o t h e r p e o p l e ' s c o r r e s p o n d i n g A - g o a l s are to them. T h e t r a i t " U n c o m p r o m i s i n g "
e x e m p l i f i e s an a c r o s s - t h e - b o a r d deviation from the norm. J o h n will g i v e h i g h e r t h a n
n o r m a l I m p o r t a n c e t o most of his goals.
T h e s e i m p o r t a n c e relations enable us to c o n s t r u c t a r e l a t i v e - I m p o r t a n c e ( R l ) g o a l
tree
f o r J o h n in t h e same manner that w e c o n s t r u c t e d goal t r e e s f o r
political
I d e o l o g i e s In P O L I T I C S [ 3 ] . Here is the fragment of John's goal t r e e , c o n s t r u c t e d
f r o m t h e Information c o n t a i n e d in the personality traits In s t o r y 6 .
A-KNOU(John,X,+)
I
I RI-Mnk
I
P-MONEY(John,*)
I
I Rl-link
I
A-POSSESSIONS(John,+)
Figure
It
F r a g m e n t o f J o h n ' s RI goal
tree.
F i g u r e 1 t e l l s us t h a t of the t h r e e goals that w e know J o h n t o h a v e , h e c o n s i d e r s
a c q u i s i t i o n o f n e w k n o w l e d g e as most important, followed b y p r e s e r v i n g his m o n e y ,
f o l l o w e d b y acquiring n e w material p o s s e s s i o n s .
pBrson
S i n c e w e k n o w t h a t J o h n Is a
a n d a member of w e s t e r n s o c i e t y w e know that he has c e r t a i n n o r m a t i v e
10
g o a l s common t o most p e o p l e In the s o c i e t y . T h e s e goals include:
EXPLANATION
GOAL
1)
P-heal tMSel f,+)
S e I f - p r e s e r v a t i on
2)
P-heal tMFamily, +)
P r e s e r v a t i o n of
members
3)
A - p o s s e s s i o n s ( S e l f , +)
A c q u i r e w e a l t h and
belongings
4)
P-possessions(Sel f,+)
Preserve one's
5)
A-sociaf
respect(others,+)
Be r e s p e c t e d by o t h e r
8)
A-know(Self,X,+)
L e a r n new t h i n g s
7)
E-unpleasant
activi ty(Self,-)
Avoid going through
unpleasant experiences
( e . g . , s t a y out o f j a i l )
8)
E-pleasant
Have fun d o i n g
things
activi ty(Self,+)
3)
P-health(others,*)
1 0 ) P - a n y t h i ng(enemi e s , - )
Help others
family
belongings
people
enjoyable
survive
U i s h doom upon o n e ' s enemies
E n j o y m e n t g o a l s ( E - g o a l s ) are a third t y p e of goal in Schank and A b e l s o n ' s
[13]
g o a l t a x o n o m y . T h e s e goals are usually of a more fleeting n a t u r e , t h e r e f o r e
less
i m p o r t a n t t h e n t h e A - g o a l s and P-goals w e d i s c u s s e d earlier.
T h e s e t o f g o a l s c a n b e ranked in terms of their normative r e l a t i v e i m p o r t a n c e t o
a p r o t o t y p i c a l member of our s o c i e t y . For i n s t a n c e , p r e s e r v a t i o n o f o n e s e l f
and
o n e ' s family a r e usually t h e t w o most important goals for a n y b o d y . H o w e v e r , if w e
l e a r n t h a t a p e r s o n Is foolhardy, w e interpret this as a deviation from t h e n o r m a t i v e
g o a l t r e e w h e r e P - s e l f is a low Importance goal to t h a t p e r s o n . If t h e p e r s o n Is
d e s c r i b e d a s s u i c i d a l , t h e P-health goal is not p r e s e n t in his goal t r e e ; i n d e e d ,
P-health(self,-)
may
substitute
the
normative
P-health(self,+)
goal.
Similarly,
w i s h i n g doom o n o n e ' s enemies is, in the normative c a s e , a l o w e r i m p o r t a n c e g o a l
11
t h a n m o s t o f t h e o t h e r goals listed a b o v e . If a p e r s o n is d e s c r i b e d a s v i n d i c t i v e , w e
k n o w t h a t his goal o f P - a n y t h i n g ( e n e m i e s , - ) is much more Important t o him t h a n Is
normally the c a s e .
The
figure
below
is the r e l a t i v e importance goal n e t w o r k for a
prototypical,
n o r m a t i v e p e r s o n . S i n c e t h e network is a c y c l i c a l , it is c o n c e p t u a l l y e q u i v a l e n t t o a
tree.
T h i s t r e e Is s u b j e c t to a s e t of inference rules d e v e l o p e d In [ 3 ] . . S o m e o f t h e
m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l rules are p r e s e n t e d later in this s e c t i o n .
Figure 2 Is a n e m p i r i c a l
a t t e m p t a t p a r t i a l l y ordering t h e more common goals that p e o p l e p u r s u e .
The tree
i n c l u d e s t h e g o a l s l i s t e d a b o v e ; it is not meant to be a c o m p r e h e n s i v e g o a l t r e e o f
all s i g n i f i c a n t g o a l s t h a t may be pursued b y people in our s o c i e t y .
F i g u r e 2:
In t h e
Goal
case
of
t r e e f o r a normative person.
story
6, the personality traits
applied t o J o h n
promote
his
A - k n o w l e d g e g o a l t o a higher importance than the other t h r e e goals a t t h a t l e v e l ,
b u t k e e p t h e h i g h e r p r e s e r v a t i o h goals (e.g., P - s e l f and P-family) a s most i m p o r t a n t .
T h e f a c t t h a t h e Is t h r i f t y , c r e a t e s the more s p e c i f i c P-money goal ( a n i n s t a n c e o f
the
more
Importance
general
than
P-possessions
his
goal)
A-possessions
and p l a c e s
goal
in
the
this
goal
goal a s
tree.
having
higher
Furthermore,
his
A - p o s s e s s i o n s g o a l is d e m o t e d below the other goals found a t t h a t l e v e l In t h e
12
n o r m a t i v e g o a l t r e e . T h e f a c t that John is uncompromising makes all his g o a l s in t h e
tree
more important t o him than in the normative c a s e .
Thus, w e r e p r e s e n t
the
m e a n i n g o f J o h n ' s c h a r a c t e r traits in 6 as a modification t o t h e normative p e r s o n ' s
goal t r e e .
H o w c a n w e u s e this goal t r e e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ?
L e t us c o n t i n u e w i t h t h e
story.
(6)
John is a very inquisitive
p e r s o n . He i s a l s o r a t h e r
p e r s o n a l a f f a i r s . One day
I a r ge r e p a i r b i l l f o r h i s
and uncompromising
t h r i f t y in h i s
he got an u n u s u a l l y
car...
W h a t is J o h n likely t o do about the repair bill? T h e f a c t t h a t J o h n ' s P - m o n e y g o a l
h a s h i g h I m p o r t a n c e s u g g e s t s that he may not be willing t o p a r t w i t h t h e
large
a m o u n t o f m o n e y r e q u i r e d to p a y the bill. His high importance A - k n o w goal s u g g e s t s
t h a t h e m a y w a n t t o d i s c o v e r w h y the bill is unusually l a r g e ; he may w a n t t o k n o w
w h e t h e r h e is being c h e a t e d b y the repair shop. John will p u r s u e t h e s e t w o g o a l s
w i t h more t h a n u s u a l determination; this is, in e s s e n c e , the meaning o f J o h n b e i n g
u n c o m p r o m i s i n g . W e do not think that a reader of 6 would p r e d i c t a n y
specific
a c t i o n s o n J o h n ' s p a r t , but understanding his goals helps one t o u n d e r s t a n d
the
n a t u r e o f l a t e r a c t i o n s t h a t may follow in the s t o r y . W e b e l i e v e t h a t it Is c r u c i a l f o r
t h e r e a d e r t o b e a w a r e of the f a c t that t w o of the goals t h a t J o h n holds in h i g h
importance
have
b e e n v i o l a t e d b y the unusually high repair bill.
k n o w l e d g e o n e is unable to comprehend the entire s t o r y .
Without
this
Furthermore, t h e g e n e r a l
e x p e c t a t i o n s h o u l d b e made b y the reader that John's actions In t h e
Immediate
f u t u r e will p r o b a b l y b e attempts to fulfill either or both P - m o n e y a n d A - k n o w . W e
I l l u s t r a t e t h i s claim b y giving the conclusion of the s t o r y .
(6)
J o h n i s a v e r y i n q u i s i t i v e and uncompromising
p e r s o n . He i s a l s o r a t h e r t h r i f t y i n h i s
p e r s o n a l a f f a i r s . One day he got an unusual l y
l a r g e r e p a i r b i l l f o r h i s c a r . John c a l l e d
h i s b r o t h e r , a w e a l t h y l a w y e r , to take c a r e
o f the problem.
13
O u r I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e last s e n t e n c e is that John's brother will p r o b a b l y d i s p u t e
t h e r e p a i r s h o p on J o h n ' s behalf to lower the bill. This conclusion is a r r i v e d a t In l i g h t
o f t h e g o a l s t h a t J o h n is e x p e c t e d to be a c t i v e l y pursuing, P - m o n e y a n d A - k n o w .
H o w d o e s calling a w e a l t h y l a w y e r help John a c h i e v e t h e s e g o a l s ? T h e j o b o f a
l a w y e r Is t o a c t a s an a g e n t furthering the goals of his client. A l a w y e r may b e more
s u c c e s s f u l a t g e t t i n g the repair bill l o w e r e d .
T h e retaining f e e a s s o c i a t e d
with
hiring a l a w y e r ( v i o l a t i n g P - m o n e y ) may not apply b e c a u s e of t h e family relationship*
T h e f a c t t h a t J o h n Is uncompromising supports our interpretation o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n ;
J o h n is p u r s u i n g his v i o l a t e d goals as b e s t he c a n .
W h y d i d w e n e e d t o g e n e r a t e the e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t J o h n w o u l d p u r s u e P - m o n e y
a n d A - k n o w ? T h e a n s w e r Is: w e n e e d to know John's goals in o r d e r t o
correctly
i n t e r p r e t t h e c o n c l u s i o n . J o h n ' s goals come directly from the p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s o f t h e
f i r s t t w o s e n t e n c e s . In o r d e r to illustrate the n e c e s s i t y of determining J o h n ' s g o a l s
b e f o r e I n t e r p r e t i n g t h e conclusion, consider the following similar s t o r y :
(7)
J o h n i s an a p a t h e t i c , h a p p y - g o - l u c k y p e r s o n .
He i s a l s o somewhat o f a s p e n d t h r i f t .
One d a y he g o t an u n u s u a l l y l a r g e r e p a i r b i l l f o r
h i s c a r . John c a l l e d h i s brother, a wealthy lawyer,
t o t a k e c a r e o f the p r o b l e m .
O u r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f this s t o r y Is that John may h a v e w a n t e d some m o n e y t o p a y
f o r h i s r e p a i r bill. His b r o t h e r , being a w e a l t h y l a w y e r , w a s a p o s s i b l e s o u r c e f o r t h e
n e e d e d m o n e y . ( I n an Informal confirmation of our interpretations w e g a v e s t o r y 6 t o
f i v e p e o p l e and 7 to five other people. Everyone was asked to explain t h e s t o r y
t h e y r e a d , a n d , f o r t h e most part, their interpretations c o n c u r r e d w i t h o u r s . )
John,
b e i n g a p a t h e t i c , a t t a c h e s little importance to his A - k n o w goal. T h e f a c t t h a t h e Is a
s p e n d t h r i f t means t h a t he d o e s not a t t a c h much importance t o his P - m o n e y g o a l , b u t
he
may
give
more
importance
to A - p o s s e s s i o n s
or E - t h l n g s
that
cost
money.
F u r t h e r m o r e , s o m e o n e w i t h a low P-money is likely to not h a v e much m o n e y In h a n d .
T h e r e f o r e , a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n is that John may b e unable t o p a y t h e r e p a i r
bill.
F i n a l l y , a h a p p y - g o - l u c k y person does not bother to p u r s u e his g o a l s w i t h m u c h
14
d e t e r m i n a t i o n . He is more i n t e r e s t e d in the quickest solution t o t h e p r e s e n t dilemma.
W i t h t h e s e g o a l s ( o r t h e lack t h e r e o f ) in consideration w h e n w e i n t e r p r e t t h e l a s t
s e n t e n c e o f 7, w e c o n c l u d e that John only c a r e s about dismissing t h e p r o b l e m o f
t h e r e p a i r bill a s quickly as possible, A loan or gift from his rich b r o t h e r fulfills o u r
e x p e c t a t i o n s o f J o h n ' s probable behavior.
If 7 w e r e c o n t i n u e d w i t h "John's brother said he had a l r e a d y l o a n e d J o h n t o o
much money.
11
w e w o u l d confirm our e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t J o h n w a s asking f o r f i n a n c i a l
a s s i s t a n c e . O n t h e o t h e r hand, the a b o v e continuation following e v e n t 6 m a k e s l i t t l e
s e n s e . T h i s i l l u s t r a t e s the f a c t t h a t w e did not e x p e c t J o h n t o ask f o r m o n e y in 8 .
T h e c o n t i n u a t i o n is a r e s p o n s e to a n o n - e x i s t e n t e x p e c t a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e It Is n o t
surprising
t h a t s u c h a continuation following s t o r y 6 is r a t h e r p u z z l i n g .
Thus,
d i f f e r e n t e x p e c t a t i o n s a n d , t h e r e f o r e , different interpretations a r e p r o d u c e d b y t h e
d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s u s e d in the t w o s t o r i e s .
T h e o n l y d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n stories 6 and 7 is the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f J o h n ' s
personality
by
a few
personality
traits.
Therefore, once
again, w e
relied
on
g o a l - b a s e d Information Implied b y t h e s e c h a r a c t e r traits in o r d e r t o i n t e r p r e t a s t o r y .
T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t understanding stories w h e r e the c h a r a c t e r s a r e d e s c r i b e d
by
p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s is Inherently a goal-oriented p r o c e s s . T h e u n d e r s t a n d e r c o n s i d e r s
o n l y c e r t a i n i n f e r e n c e s and certain interpretations of s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o r s o n
b a s i s o f t h e i n f e r r e d goals and motivations of the primary c h a r a c t e r s .
the
For i n s t a n c e ,
in i n t e r p r e t i n g s t o r y 6 o n e could infer that John would ask his b r o t h e r f o r m o n e y , f o r
a n e w c a r , f o r moral s u p p o r t , or for a suggestion of a l e s s e x p e n s i v e r e p a i r s h o p .
N o n e o f t h e s e I n f e r e n c e s are made in interpreting 6 b e c a u s e t h e
understander
already
goals.
expects
John's
actions
to
be
in s e r v i c e
of
particular
g o a l - o r i e n t a t i o n Is a g e n e r a l method of pruning spurious i n f e r e n c e s .
Thus,
In o r d e r
c a r r y o u t t h e g o a l - d i r e c t e d i n f e r e n c e p r o c e s s , w e must f i r s t c o n s t r u c t t h e
to
goal
t r e e s f o r t h e p e o p l e d e s c r i b e d b y personality traits. T h e goal t r e e s a r e c o n s t r u c t e d
f r o m t h e n o r m a t i v e - p e r s o n goal t r e e modified b y the goals implicit in t h e c h a r a c t e r
traits.
15
PERSONALITY
1
1
1
TRAIT
Ambi t i OU9
T
i
1
1
1
1
GOALS ANO THEIR IMPORTANCE
( d e v i a t i o n s from the s o c i a l l y
a c c e p t e d norm)
—
—
A-possessions(self,+)
higher
A - s c o n t ( s e l f . o t h e r s , + ) higher
P-anything(others,+)
lower
A-know(seif,+)
s l i g h t l y higher
2)
Cur i ous
1 A-know(se1f,+)
3)
Prudent
1 P-anything(self,+)
1 P-anything(others,+)
1
4)
Spendthrift
1 P-money ( s e l f ,4-)
lower
1 P-possessions(self,+) s l i g h t l y 1
lower
1 E - t h i n g s / t h a t / c o s t/money ( s e 1 f 4-)
1
s1i gh 11y h i g h e r
h i gher
higher
slightly h i gher
f
5)
V i n d i c t ive
1 P - a n y t h i n g ( o t h e r s who have c a u s e d
1
goal f a i l u r e . - ) h i g h e r
G)
Powerhungry
1 A-scont(self,others.+)
7)
Compas9 i o n a t e
1 P-hea1th(others,+)
higher
1 P-anything(others,+) s l i g h t l y \
h i gher
1 E-unpleasant e x p e r i e n c e ( o t h e r s , - )
1
h i gher
8)
P1ayboy
1
1
1
1
1
9)
se1f-centered
1 <any-goal>(self,+)
slightly I
hi gher
1 <any-goal>(others +)
lower
higher
E-sex(self.+)
E-anything(self,+)
higher
slightly h i gher
A-luxurious poss(self,+) higher
P-money ( s e l f , + ) s l i g h t l y lower
f
18)
Bel 1igerent
1 A-scont(self,others,+)
1
1 Cause g o a l - c o n f 1 i c t s
slightly
h i gher
--4-
T a b l e 2:
Goal-oriented personality
traits.
T a b l e 2 l i s t s t h e d e v i a t i o n s from the social normative goal t r e e f o r e a c h
implicit in v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . For i n s t a n c e , an ambitious p e r s o n
higher
i m p o r t a n c e t o t h e goals of increasing his social s t a t u s
goal
attributes
(i.e., p o w e r
and
p r e s t i g e ) , his w e a l t h , and his worldly p o s s e s s i o n s . Ambition also Implies l e s s c o n c e r n
16
f o r t h e g o a l s o f o t h e r s , e s p e c i a l l y if any of their p r e s e r v a t i o n goals c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e
ambitious
person's
A-goals.
Thus the goal t r e e of an ambitious p e r s o n Is
the
n o r m a t i v e p e r s o n ' s goal t r e e (figure 2) with the a b o v e goals r a i s e d or l o w e r e d in
i m p o r t a n c e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e entries in table 2.
In [ 3 ] , w e d i s c u s s a s e t of i n f e r e n c e rules that f o c u s the i n f e r e n c e p r o c e s s
by
a n a l y z i n g t h e goal t r e e t o determine the s u b j e c t i v e l y most i n t e r e s t i n g a s p e c t s o f a
s i t u a t i o n . T h e s e rules also apply to p e r s o n a l i t y - t r a i t goal t r e e s , as i l l u s t r a t e d b e l o w .
W e p r e s e n t some o f t h e more w i d e l y - a p p l i c a b l e rules:
RULE 1
I f p r o g r e s s t o w a r d s a goal can be a c h i e v e d by
a p a r t i c u l a r course of a c t i o n , that course of
a c t i o n s h o u l d be p u r s u e d .
RULE 2 :
I f a p o s s i b l e course of a c t i o n v i o l a t e s a g o a l ,
i t s h o u l d be a c t i v e l y a v o i d e d .
RULE 3 :
I
I f a c o u r s e o f a c t i o n a f f e c t s two g o a l s , and
ho o t h e r r u l e s d e t e r m i n e which goal to f o c u s
o n , t h e e f f e c t on the h i g h e r - i m p o r t a n c e g o a l
d e t e r m i n e s whether the c o u r s e o f a c t i o n s h o u l d
be p u r s u e d .
RULE 4 :
R e l a t i v e importance
transi t i ve.
l i n k s i n a goal
tree are
L e t u s a p p l y t h e s e rules to the interpretation of the following t w o stories*
(8)
J o h n , an a r n b t t i o u s l a w y e r , had to d e c i d e whether
t o a c c e p t the l u c r a t i v e GM c o n t r a c t o r d e v o t e h i s
time to the f r e e l e g a l - a id s o c i e t y . I t d i d not
t a k e l o n g t o make up h i s mind.
(3)
J o h n , a v e r y c o m p a s s i o n a t e l a w y e r , had t o d e c i d e
w h e t h e r t o a c c e p t the l u c r a t i v e GM c o n t r a c t o r
d e v o t e h i s time to the f r e e l e g a l - a i d s o c i e t y .
I t d i d n o t t a k e long t o make up h i s mind.
17
T h e d e c i s i o n c o n f r o n t i n g J o h n in both stories is w h e t h e r t o p u r s u e t h e g o a l s o f
A - m o n e y ( J o h n , + ) a n d A - s c o n t ( J o h n , o t h e r s , + ) , or to help o t h e r s fulfill t h e i r P - g o a l s . In
t h e n o r m a t i v e p e r s o n goal t r e e , the t w o A-goals are somewhat more important t h a n
t h e P - a n y t h i n g ( o t h e r s , + ) goal. T h e f a c t that John is ambitious r a i s e s t h e i m p o r t a n c e
o f his s e l f - c e n t e r e d A - g o a l s and further lowers the importance o f helping
fulfill t h e i r P - g o a l s .
others
Applying rule 3 (and 4 if n e c e s s a r y ) w e c o n c l u d e t h a t J o h n will
p u r s u e his A - m o n e y a n d A - s c o n t goals. T h e r e f o r e , according t o rule 1, J o h n p r o b a b l y
m a d e up his mind t o a c c e p t t h e GM c o n t r a c t .
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , if w e modify the normative p e r s o n goal t r e e b y t h e e n t r y f o r
" c o m p a s s i o n a t e " In t a b l e 2, w e find that P-goals of o t h e r s i n c r e a s e in importance*
This
means that P-anything(others,+)
A - m o n e y a n d A - s c o n t goals in s t o r y 9.
is roughly equal In importance w i t h
John's
Which w a y did J o h n make up his mind? W e
c a n n o t t e l l u n l e s s w e h a v e some w a y to measure the r e l a t i v e i n c r e a s e in i m p o r t a n c e
of
the
P-goals
with
respect
to
the
base
difference
in i m p o r t a n c e
between
P - a n y t h i n g ( o t h e r s , + ) and t h e t w o A - g o a l s in t h e original normative p e r s o n g o a l t r e e .
A n a l t e r n a t i v e solution t o this problem involves taking pragmatic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f
s t o r y t e l l i n g into a c c o u n t w h e n formulating John's goal t r e e . W h y w e r e w e t o l d t h a t
J o h n Is v e r y c o m p a s s i o n a t e ? This f a c t must h a v e some r e l e v a n c e t o t h e r e s t o f t h e
story.
T h e o n l y r e l e v a n c e it could h a v e is to a f f e c t John's d e c i s i o n . If w e u s e d a
n o r m a t i v e g o a l t r e e for J o h n , w e would e x p e c t his decision t o f a v o r a c c e p t i n g t h e
GM c o n t r a c t . In o r d e r t o a f f e c t John's decision (i.e., r e v e r s e It) w e must c h a n g e t h e
r e l a t i v e ranking o f his goals w i t h r e s p e c t t o importance. T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e a d e r o f 9
will
probably
guess
t h a t John's
goal of P - a n y t h i n g ( o t h e r s , + )
takes
on
greater
I m p o r t a n c e t h a n his A - m o n e y and A - s c o n t goals.
T h e a b o v e d i s c u s s i o n s u g g e s t s that social
prototypes
might b e a u s e f u l c o n c e p t
t o h a v e , d e f i n e d In t h e same spirit as Rosch's semantic p r o t o t y p e s [ 9 ] a n d R i c h ' s
preference stereotypes [8].
As a f i r s t - o r d e r approximation o n e c a n u s e a s i n g l e
n o r m a t i v e - p e r s o n s o c i a l p r o t o t y p e , defined b y the goals and r e l a t i v e
importance
r e l a t i o n s o f f i g u r e s 1 and 2 . H o w e v e r , e x t e n d i n g our notion o f normative g o a l t r e e
18
o n e c a n d e f i n e o t h e r s u c h t r e e s , e a c h corresponding to a well d e f i n e d s o c i a l c l a s s
("role
t h e m e " in S c h a n k and Abelson's notation [ 1 3 ] ) .
Thus, w e can s a y
that
s o m e o n e is "ambitious for a bum", " h o n e s t for a politician", or "more pious t h a n a
priest".
In t h e s e c a s e s t h e personality traits are d e f i n e d as t h e s a m e d e v i a t i o n s
f r o m t h e norm, b u t t h e norm itself has b e e n temporarily r e d e f i n e d b y t h e
social
p r o t o t y p e a n d its c o r r e s p o n d i n g relative-importance goal t r e e .
5. H o w Personality Traits Constrain the Application of Planning and
Counterplanning Strategies
It
is
often
useful
for
an understander
to p r e d i c t
the
c o u n t e r p l a n n i n g s t r a t e g i e s t h a t a person is likely t o u s e .
m e a n b y planning or counterplanning s t r a t e g i e s .
type
of
planning
or
L e t us d e f i n e w h a t
we
A planning s t r a t e g y Is a
basic
p l a n n i n g m e t h o d applicable to different circumstances, s u c h as bargaining f o r a n d
o b j e c t o r invoking a s o c i a l obligation to g e t another p e r s o n t o do one's b i d d i n g
are
p l a n n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . T h e s e planning units are d i s c u s s e d in [ 1 3 ] w h e r e t h e y
are
c a l l e d p i a n b o x e s . Counterplanning s t r a t e g i e s are more complex means o f a c h i e v i n g
o n e ' s g o a l s in s p i t e of o t h e r parties a c t i v e l y trying to p r e v e n t o n e ' s goal f u l f i l l m e n t .
Examples
of
counterplanning
strategies
include threatening
higher
goals
of
o p p o n e n t t o d i v e r t his e f f o r t s a w a y from blocking one's goals, and e s t a b l i s h i n g
an
a
m u t u a l g o a l - b l o c k a g e situation, t h e r e b y being in a position to n e g o t i a t e a r e s o l u t i o n
t o t h e mutual goal blocking actions. Counterplanning s t r a t e g i e s a r e d e v e l o p e d in
[ 3 , 4 ] t o model political reasoning and planning in o t h e r a d v e r s a r y s i t u a t i o n s .
All
s t r a t e g i e s h a v e " t r i c k o p t i o n s " , s u c h as bargaining or negotiating in bad f a i t h .
Personality
t r a i t s may s u g g e s t that certain s t r a t e g i e s a r e more likely t o
a p p l i e d b y a g i v e n p e r s o n t h a t is generally the c a s e . For e x a m p l e , a bully will
w i t h g r e a t e r f r e q u e n c y and l e s s h e s i t a t i o n t h a n
be
use
threats
and overpowers
people.
M o r e o f t e n , p e r s o n a l i t y traits constrain the application o f c o u n t e r p l a n n i n g
s t r a t e g i e s . A timid p e r s o n Is unlikely to use t h r e a t s ; an h o n e s t p e r s o n will n o t
trick options.
C o n s i d e r t h e following fragment of a c o n v e r s a t i o n o v e r h e a r d on a b u s :
most
use
19
Fragment of a c o n v e r s a t i o n .
(10)
Person 1
- Do y o u remember o l d Ed?
Person 2
-
You mean the incompetent salesman who
t o c h e a t i n our c a r d games?
Person 1
-
Y e a h , he asked me f o r a r a i s e t o d a y . I p u l l e d
o u t h i s employee r e c o r d and you can imagine
what I t o l d h i m !
tries
W e c e r t a i n l y c a n Imagine t h a t "old E d " did not g e t his r a i s e . H o w d o w e
t h i s ? H o w d o e s p e r s o n 1 know that person 2 will u n d e r s t a n d him?
know
The answer to
b o t h o f t h e s e q u e s t i o n s is determined b y w h a t w e as r e a d e r s ( a n d p e r s o n 2 d u r i n g
t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n ) k n o w about "old E d " . Namely, he is d i s h o n e s t a n d i n c o m p e t e n t .
T h i s m e a n s t h a t h e is willing to u s e t r i c k - o p t i o n s t r a t e g i e s a g a i n s t his b o s s , a n d h e
is u n a b l e t o c h o o s e or c a r r y out the appropriate s t r a t e g i e s In his j o b a s s a l e s m a n .
Thus,
Ed's
boss
has
t w o r e a s o n s for denying the r a i s e , c o r r e s p o n d i n g
to
the
Ed
had
following t w o rules:
RULE 5 :
MAKING ENEMIES
I f an a c t o r X r e p e a t e d l y c o u n t e r p l a n s a g a i n s t
a c t o r Y,
Y w i l l n o t h e l p X a c h i e v e any g o a l s i n
the f u t u r e .
REFINEMENT
I f X is successful in h i s counterplanning,
Y may p u r s u e the goal o f t e r m i n a t i n g
any subsumption s t a t e t h a t e n a b l e s X
t o c o u n t e r p l a n a g a i n s t Y.
RULE 2 :
The
I f a p o s s i b l e course of a c t i o n v i o l a t e s a
g o a l , i t s h o u l d be a c t i v e l y a v o i d e d .
first
reason why
old Ed's boss should d e n y t h e r a i s e
is t h a t
r e p e a t e d l y c o u n t e r p l a n n e d against his boss b y trying t o c h e a t a t c a r d s , a p p a r e n t l y
w i t h little s u c c e s s . T h u s , according to rule 5, Ed's boss should not b e e x p e c t e d t o
h e l p E d b y g i v i n g him the r e q u e s t e d raise. It is interesting t o n o t e t h a t if E d h a d
s u c c e e d e d In r e p e a t e d l y counterplanning against his b o s s t h e n t h e r e f i n e m e n t o f
20
r u l e 5 Is d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e . T h e boss could fire E d , thus terminating t h e s u b s u m p t i o n
s t a t e t h a t makes Ed's b o s s vulnerable to Ed's t r i c k - o p t i o n s t r a t e g i e s . T h e s e c o n d
r e a s o n w h y t h e b o s s should d e n y the raise is that giving Ed more money v i o l a t e s t h e
A - m o n e y g o a l t h a t all b u s i n e s s e s h a v e . Thus, rule 2 v e t o s a n y raise t o E d . If E d w a s
n o t i n c o m p e t e n t he w o u l d make more money for the b u s i n e s s t h u s no A - m o n e y g o a l
w o u l d b e v i o l a t e d and rule 2 would not apply. ( B u s i n e s s e s h a v e goals t o o .
In f a c t ,
t h e y h a v e g o a l t r e e s , j u s t like nations, individuals and most o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s in o u r
society.)
T a b l e 3 p r e s e n t s some personality traits and the t y p e s of s t r a t e g i e s likely t o b e
e m p l o y e d b y t h e p e r s o n w i t h t h e r e s p e c t i v e trait.
21
--+PERSONALITY
mmm
2)
TYPES OF SUGGESTED PLANNING
AND COUNTERPLANNING STRATEGIES
( d e v i a t i o n s from s o c i a l norm)
TRAIT
J..
Ambi t i o u s
H i q h e r - o r d e r p l a n boxes ( e . g . ,
THREATEN, OVERPOUER) and
counterpIanninq strateqies
( e . g . , BLOCK-HIGHER-GOAL).
T r i c k - o p t i o n s if necessary.
No compromises i f p o s s i b l e .
Trustworthy
No t r i c k - o p t i o n s u s e d .
Preference for lower-order
s t r a t e g i e s and compromises.
|
3)
D i shonest
I Trick-options
4)
Unscrupulous
5)
Compassionate
6)
Capable
Make c o r r e c t d e c i s i o n s i n
s e l e c t i n g the p r o p e r s t r a t e g i e s
f o r each s i t u a t i o n . C a r r y i n g
out s t r a t e g i e s without e r r o r s .
7)
Incompetent
Random or e r r o r - p r o n e c h o i c e o f
s t r a t e g i e s . P o s s i b l y n o t aware
o f some s t r a t e g i e s .
8)
Be I I i g e r e n t
C h o i c e o f s t r a t e g i e s t o maximize
p l a n - c o n f l i c t s with others.
H i q h e r - o r d e r s t r a t e g i e s used
when not n e c e s s a r y .
!
used
Hiqher-order strategies, t r i c k o p t i o n s used d i s r e g a r d i n g a l l
n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s on o t h e r s .
S t r a t e q i e s chosen not to harm
o t h e r s and, i f p o s s i b l e , t o h e l p
others f u l f i l l their goals.
|
—+T a b l e 3:
Means-oriented personality
traits.
W e e m p h a s i z e t h a t it Is important to understand the s t r a t e g i e s implied b y c e r t a i n
c h a r a c t e r t r a i t s . W i t h o u t analyzing the s t r a t e g i e s in the p r e v i o u s e x a m p l e w e w o u l d
n o t h a v e b e e n able t o invoke rule 5 b e c a u s e w e would not h a v e d i s c o v e r e d t h e
relevance
of
the
repeated
counterplanning
on
Ed's
part.
The
simple-minded
a l t e r n a t i v e t o a n a l y z i n g t h e goals and s t r a t e g i e s underlying p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s is t o
a s s o c i a t e all p o s s i b l e outcomes with e a c h trait. For i n s t a n c e , u n d e r " I n c o m p e t e n t "
o n e w o u l d h a v e t o s t o r e ( a n d consider e a c h time this trait Is m e n t i o n e d ) t h a t o n e
m a y b e d e n i e d r a i s e s , f i r e d from the job, abandoned b y o n e ' s f r i e n d s , s c o r n e d
by
22
n e i g h b o r s , d o b a d l y in s t u d i e s , lose at most games, h a v e an u n h a p p y l i f e , h a v e
rather
low
intelligence,
e t c . ad infinitum.
This method of d i r e c t l y
a
associating
b e h a v i o r s w i t h p e r s o n a l i t y traits has many d r a w b a c k s , s u c h as t h e s h e e r s i z e a n d
inefficiency
of
the
memory required to s t o r e all b e h a v i o r s
associated
with
all
character traits.
L e t u s c o n s i d e r a d i f f e r e n t reason w h y s u c h a method is i n s u f f i c i e n t .
deal
with
the
following
type
of
characterization?
"Millard
How do w e
Fillmore
was
an
i n c o m p e t e n t p r e s i d e n t . " C l e a r l y , w e do not mean that Fillmore w a s s c o r n e d b y h i s
neighbors
a n d did b a d l y on his s t u d i e s . On the other hand, most o f t h e
above
c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s w e r e true of Galileo. (He w a s f i r e d , s c o r n e d , l a u g h e d a t , a n d h e
l e d a n u n h a p p y life.) W e would not s a y that Galileo w a s i n c o m p e t e n t . Q u i t e
the
contrary,
his
he
contemporaries
applied
the
proper
may
have
been
strategies
the
real
to
physics
problems,
incompetents.
Hence,
while
the
trait
" i n c o m p e t e n c e " r e f e r s t o a person's ability to formulate and c a r r y o u t p l a n s , r a t h e r
t h a n a n y s p e c i f i c t y p e of b e h a v i o r .
T h e s t r a t e g y - b a s e d p e r s o n a l i t y traits are defined in terms o f d e v i a t i o n s from t h e
s o c i a l norm, In t h e same manner that w e defined g o a l - b a s e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . T h u s ,
a s s e r t i n g t h a t Millard Fillmore w a s an incompetent p r e s i d e n t means t h a t h e is l e s s
c o m p e t e n t t h a n o t h e r p r e s i d e n t s with r e s p e c t to his planning and c o u n t e r p l a n n i n g
a b i l i t i e s in his o f f i c i a l role as p r e s i d e n t . W e h a v e , h o w e v e r , a much n a r r o w e r s o c i a l
norm f o r j u d g i n g t h e c o m p e t e n c e of p r e s i d e n t s . Both the comparison s e t o f p e o p l e Is
s m a l l e r , a n d t h e domain of application of the s t r a t e g i e s upon w h i c h h e is j u d g e d is
m u c h b e t t e r d e f i n e d . T h e same principle applies w h e n w e r e f e r t o a c a p a b l e j a n i t o r
o r a b e l l i g e r e n t p r i e s t . W e would not e x p e c t a capable janitor t o make
correct
s t r a t e g y d e c i s i o n s In International politics, nor would w e e x p e c t a b e l l i g e r e n t p r i e s t
t o s e e k out fist fights.
23
6. Combining Personality Traits
P e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s combine w i t h e a c h other and w i t h o t h e r p e r s o n a l
attributes
s u c h a s r o l e t h e m e s . (A role theme is a characterization of a p e r s o n ' s p o s i t i o n in
s o c i e t y , l a r g e l y d e t e r m i n e d b y the person's profession - s e e [ 1 3 ] . ) T h e e x a m p l e s
w e j u s t d i s c u s s e d a r e interactions of personality traits with role t h e m e s . T h e r o l e
t h e m e d e f i n e s t h e normative s e t of people with r e s p e c t t o w h i c h t h e p e r s o n a l i t y
trait defines a deviation.
As w e d i s c u s s e d , the role theme c a n also d e f i n e
dimension
of the personality trait. An i n c o m p e t e n t
of
applicability
the
president
Is
i n c o m p e t e n t w i t h r e s p e c t to his duties as p r e s i d e n t . An unscrupulous l a w y e r is l i k e l y
t o u s e t h e h i g h e r - o r d e r s t r a t e g i e s and not w o r r y about t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f his
a c t i o n s u p o n t h e goals of o t h e r s only within the confines of his role a s a l a w y e r * T h e
unscrupulous
lawyer
might
be
considerate
with
friends
or
family
outside
the
c o u r t r o o m , r e g a r d l e s s o f how he c a r r i e s out his professional a c t i v i t i e s .
P e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s combine with e a c h other t o g i v e a more c o m p l e t e p i c t u r e o f a
p e r s o n ' s g o a l t r e e and the s t r a t e g i e s he is willing to u s e In furthering his g o a l s . O u r
p r e v i o u s e x a m p l e s included s e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s w h e r e more than o n e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t
w a s u s e d t o d e s c r i b e a p e r s o n . AH of t h e s e examples had one Important p r o p e r t y in
c o m m o n : E a c h p e r s o n a l i t y trait dealt with d i f f e r e n t personal goals or d i f f e r e n t s e t s
o f s t r a t e g i e s . For i n s t a n c e a description of John as inquisitive, t r u s t w o r t h y , t h r i f t y ,
a n d c a p a b l e is simple t o formulate. John has high A - k n o w , high P - m o n e y , d o e s n o t
u s e t r i c k o p t i o n s , and s e l e c t s and applies s t r a t e g i e s c o r r e c t l y . W h a t h a p p e n s w h e n
t w o p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s d e s c r i b e the same goal or deal w i t h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e
same s e t of strategies?
W e d e v e l o p e d a s e t o f heuristics for combining p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s .
Consider a
p e r s o n d e s c r i b e d b y traits A and B, w h e r e A and B are d e f i n e d in t e r m s o f
d e v i a t i o n s from t h e normative p e r s o n . A and B c o n s i s t of a list o f
pairs.
An
attribute
Is
either
the
name
of
a
goal
or
the
their
attribute-rank
name
of
a
p l a n n i n g / c o u n t e r p l a n n i n g s t r a t e g y . In the former c a s e , the rank tells h o w much m o r e
( o r l e s s ) Important t h a t goal is to the person d e s c r i b e d than t o t h e
normative
24
p e r s o n . In t h e l a t t e r c a s e , the rank e n c o d e s the person's r e l a t i v e p r e d i s p o s i t i o n t o
a p p l y t h e s t r a t e g y ( a g a i n w i t h r e s p e c t to the normative p e r s o n ) . T h e r u l e s b e l o w
e n c o d e o u r p r o c e s s for combining traits A and B.
R u l e 6:
COMPLEMENTARY DESCRIPTIONS.
Take t h e u n i o n o f a l l the a t t r i b u t e s t h a t
a p p e a r i n o n l y one o f the two t r a i t s .
R u l e 7:
RESOLUTION C R I T E R I A .
I f t h e a t t r i b u t e appears i n b o t h t r a i t s A and B,
c o n s i d e r t h e two r a n k i n g s and a p p l y the f o l l o w i n g
rules:
R u l e 8:
CONTRADICTORY T R A I T S .
I f b o t h r a n k i n g s have a h i g h magnitude, b u t
o p p o s i t e s i g n , the two t r a i t s cannot be combined,
( e . g . A g e n e r o u s m i s e r , and a c o w a r d l y b r a v e
p e r s o n are instances of c o n t r a d i c t o r y t r a i t s . )
R u l e 9:
REINFORCEMENT OF EXTREMES.
I f b o t h r a n k i n g s have a h i g h magnitude and the
same s i g n , a s s e r t the a t t r i b u t e w i t h a r a n k i n g
s l i g h t l y l a r g e r than the maximum o f the two
o r i g i n a l r a n k i n g s , ( e . g . , An u n s c r u p u l o u s ,
v i n d i c t i v e p e r s o n i s more l i k e l y to v i o l a t e
o t h e r p e o p l e * s g o a l s than someone who i s
merely v i n d i c t i v e , or just unscrupulous.)
R u l e 18:
DAMPENING MINOR VARIATIONS.
I f the magnitude of both rankings is
s m a l l , but the s i g n s o p p o s i t e , d e l e t e
t h i s a t t r i b u t e from the combined t r a i t ,
a s i t i s o f l i t t l e importance and u n c e r t a i n
consistency.
R u l e 11:
PREFERENCE TO EXTREMES.
I f none o f the above r u l e s a p p l y , a v e r a g e the
two r a t i n g s , b u t g i v e g r e a t e r w e i g h t t o the
r a t i n g w i t h the h i g h e r magnitude.
T h e h e u r i s t i c rules w e r e empirically d e r i v e d b y analyzing many p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s
i n t o t h e i r c o m p o n e n t a t t r i b u t e s and recombined in d i f f e r e n t w a y s .
Our r u l e s w e r e
25
i m p l e m e n t e d a s a simple production s y s t e m (like P S G [ 7 ] ) t h a t g e n e r a t e s i n t u i t i v e l y
p l a u s i b l e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t combinations. This is only a small p a r t o f our l a r g e r p r o j e c t ,
recently
underway,
to
use
personality
traits
as
part of
an
integrated
story
understanding system.
7. Reactions Upon Failure of Strategies
M a n y p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s contain information about people t h a t c a n n o t b e e n c o d e d
in t e r m s o f g o a l t r e e s or p r e f e r e n c e s for certain t y p e s o f s t r a t e g i e s .
However,
p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s In g e n e r a l d e s c r i b e some a s p e c t of t h e individual t h a t d e v i a t e s
f r o m t h e s o c i a l l y - d e f i n e d , normative p e r s o n . T h e a s p e c t s of p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s t h a t
are
outside
the
scope
of
our
investigation
include
emotional
and
attltudinal
a t t r i b u t e s ( b u t s e e [ 1 4 ] ) . For instance t h e r e is more t o a s e n s u o u s p e r s o n t h a n a
p e r s o n w h o s e g o a l o f E - p l e a s u r e is high. Similarly, goals or s t r a t e g i e s a l o n e c a n n o t
f u l l y d e s c r i b e " m e e k " , " m o o d y " or "outgoing" p e o p l e .
T h e r e Is, h o w e v e r , o n e o t h e r a s p e c t to personality traits t h a t c a n be
usefully
i n v e s t i g a t e d w i t h i n our paradigm. People h a v e d i f f e r e n t r e a c t i o n s t o w a r d s u c c e s s o r
f a i l u r e o f t h e i r planning and counterplanning e f f o r t s . Some p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s imply
c e r t a i n t y p e s o f b e h a v i o r . A c o n t e n t e d or a e s t h e t i c p e r s o n will h a v e a much m o r e
r e s t r a i n e d r e a c t i o n t o s u c c e s s than an ambitious p e r s o n , w h o is likely t o b e s p u r r e d
on to further
achievements
b y his p a s t s u c c e s s . S i n c e most s t o r i e s
deal
with
a t t e m p t s t o fulfill goals t h a t fail r e p e a t e d l y b e f o r e ( a n d if) s u c c e s s Is e v e r r e a c h e d ,
we
f o c u s o n r e a c t i o n s t o failure situations. T h e following t a b l e i n c l u d e s
p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s t h a t imply c l a s s e s of behavior upon failure.
several
28
V
- +
PERSONALITY
TRAIT
1) P e r s i s t e n t
1 REACTIONS TO FAILURE OF PLANNING
1 AND COUNTERPLANNING STRATEGIES
1 ( d e v i a t i o n s from s o c i a l norm)
"* "f" — —
.. _ . ...
— « — — — —
— —
—
.
—
a» mm-m—
—
«
«• «•
1 T r y p l a n many times b e f o r e
1 abandoning. Then, i f p o s s i b l e .
1 t r y new p l a n to f u l f i l l the
1 same g o a l .
2)
Ambi t i o u s
1 Frustration.
1 T r y new p l a n i f p o s s i b l e .
1 O t h e r w i s e immediately pursue
1 another g o a l .
3)
Resourceful
1 A n a l y z e f a i l u r e to c o r r e c t
1 p l a n o r to choose a more
1 appropriate strategy.
-
«
the
4) H a p p y - g o - l u c k y
1 Abandon p l a n and p o s s i b l y goal
1 i f not too i m p o r t a n t .
1 No f r u s t r a t i o n r e a c t i o n .
5) D e p r e s s e d
(or Down-hearted)
1 Frustration.
1 P r o b a b l y abandon p l a n and g o a l .
6) V i n d i c t i v e
1 T r y to blame o t h e r s f o r f a i l u r e .
1 D i r e c t counterplanning e f f o r t
1 to b l o c k the g o a l s o f whoever
1 caused the f a i l u r e . ( T h i s o f t e n
1 takes g r e a t e r importance than
1 the o r i g i n a l g o a l . )
7) P a t i e n t
1 No o v e r t f r u s t r a t i o n *
1 T r y same or d i f f e r e n t p l a n ,
1 p o s s i b l y a f t e r some time has
1 elapsed.
-4—
T a b l e 4s
React i o n - t o - fai lure c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
persona I i ty t r a i t s .
of
In o r d e r t o s e e how the information in table 4 may be u s e d in t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g
p r o c e s s , c o n s i d e r the following stories:
27
(11)
J o h n i s a v i n d i c t i v e p e r s o n . Uhen h i s v e g e t a b l e
g a r d e n uas dug up by B i l l ' s dog. he p i c k e d up
t h e h e a v y s h o v e l and went to B i l l ' s h o u s e .
(12)
J o h n i s a r e s o u r c e f u l p e r s o n . Uhen h i s v e g e t a b l e
g a r d e n was dug up by B i l l ' s dog, he p i c k e d up
t h e h e a v y s h o v e l and went t o B i l l ' s h o u s e .
QUESTION:
Why d i d J o h n go t o B i l l ' s house w i t h
shovel?
the
E a c h s t o r y s u g g e s t s a d i f f e r e n t class of a n s w e r s t o t h e q u e s t i o n .
In 11
the
a n s w e r is t h a t J o h n w a n t s to g e t back at Bill. W e do not know w h e t h e r h e will u s e
the
shovel
to
overpower
Bill, dig up
Bill's g a r d e n
in r e v e n g e ,
or s o m e
other
c o u n t e r p l a n n i n g a c t . In 12 the most logical explanation s e e m s t o b e t h a t John* w a n t s
Bill t o f i x
up his g a r d e n , Informing Bill that it is his r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . In a n y
case,
w h a t e v e r a c t i o n J o h n intends in 12 Is f o c u s e d on the goal of repairing his d a m a g e d
garden.
In 11 t h e s t r o n g e r e x p e c t a t i o n is that John w a n t s r e v e n g e f o r t h e d a m a g e .
T h e s e g e n e r a l e x p e c t a t i o n s , coming from table 4, help t o guide t h e u n d e r s t a n d e r in
further
interpretation
of
either
story.
Consider
the
following
as
a
possible
c o n t i n u a t i o n t o 11 a n d 12:
CONTINUATION:
J o h n s t a r t e d d i g g i n g top s o i l
yard.
from B i l l ' s
In s t o r y 11 this continuation is i n t e r p r e t e d as r e v e n g e for w h a t Bill's d o g d i d t o
h i s g a r d e n , b u t in 12 t h e same continuation makes more s e n s e as a p a r t o f a p l a n t o
r e p a i r J o h n ' s g a r d e n . T o p soil Is n e c e s s a r y for a g a r d e n . T h e r e a s o n f o r t h e
two
d i v e r g i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s Is t h e understander's d i f f e r e n t e x p e c t a t i o n s a b o u t J o h n ' s
c u r r e n t l y a c t i v e goal.
expected
In 11 the continuation is f i r s t I n t e r p r e t e d In light o f
r e v e n g e , and a plausible interpretation is f o u n d . H e n c e , a n
the
inference
m e c h a n i s m modeling human understanding n e e d not (should n o t ) look f u r t h e r . In 1 2
t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n is I n t e r p r e t e d in light of the e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t J o h n is t r y i n g
r e p a i r his g a r d e n . As b e f o r e , a plausible interpretation Is found f o r John's
to
action
28
( s t e m m i n g from t h e u s e of topsoil) and one n e e d s to make no o t h e r I n f e r e n c e s .
8. Conclusion
Personality
events
traits
d e f i n e a g o a l - b a s e d c o n t e x t in w h i c h t o i n t e r p r e t
further
in a s t o r y . Without this c o n t e x t no explanation c a n b e f o u n d f o r
many
e v e n t s . If t h e continuation a b o v e o c c u r r e d as a s e n t e n c e b y i t s e l f , w e c o u l d m a k e
a n y n u m b e r o f i n f e r e n c e s as to John's possible intent. He could b e digging w o r m s t o
g o f i s h i n g , l a y i n g t h e foundation t o Bill's house, planting t r e e s , or b e building a dam
with
the
s o i l . N e i t h e r t h e s e nor other spurious i n f e r e n c e s n e e d t o b e m a d e
In
i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e continuation as part of s t o r y 11 or 12.
Some
p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , s u c h as ambition, e n c o d e Information a b o u t all
aspects
d i s c u s s e d a b o v e : the relative importance of goals, t e n d e n c i e s
i n v o k i n g c e r t a i n s t r a t e g i e s , and reactions to s u c c e s s or failure.
three
towards
Other personality
t r a i t s f o c u s o n o n e s p e c i f i c a s p e c t with a higher d e g r e e of c e r t a i n t y . For i n s t a n c e ,
d i s h o n e s t y r e f e r s only t o a willingness to use trick-option s t r a t e g i e s , b u t t h e r e a d e r
i s c e r t a i n o f this a s p e c t of a person's personality. Ambition, on t h e o t h e r
hand,
s u g g e s t s m a n y more t y p e s of goals and s t r a t e g i e s , but w i t h a smaller d e g r e e o f
c e r t a i n t y . An ambitious p e r s o n will probably use the h i g h e r - o r d e r s t r a t e g i e s , b u t w e
can
easily
conceive
of
an ambitious
scientist
who
does
not
spend
his
time
t h r e a t e n i n g , o v e r p o w e r i n g , or deceiving people.
T h e u s e f u l n e s s o f our analysis of personality traits will, In p a r t , b e d e c i d e d b y o u r
current
project, where
we
are implementing
a system that infers
and
applies
p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s In t h e p r o c e s s of interpreting natural language a c c o u n t s o f human
c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s . In our s y s t e m , personality traits are u s e d t o help p r e d i c t
the
e x i s t e n c e , n a t u r e and s c o p e of the i n t e r - p e r s o n a l conflicts as w e l l a s f o c u s i n g t h e
a t t e n t i o n o f t h e u n d e r s t a n d e r on the more promising paths t o w a r d s r e s o l v i n g t h e s e
conflicts.
29
9. References
1.
B e a u g r a n d e , R. D. and Colby, B. N., " N a r r a t i v e Models o f
I n t e r a c t i o n , " Cognitive
Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1 9 7 9 , p p . 4 3 - 6 6 .
Action
2.
C a r b o n e l l , J . G., " P O L I T I C S : Automated Ideological R e a s o n i n g . , "
Science,
V o l . 2, No. 1, 1978, pp. 2 7 - 5 1 .
and
Cognitive
I
3.
C a r b o n e l l , J . G.,. Subjective
Understanding:
Computer
Systems.,
PhD d i s s e r t a t i o n , Yale U n i v e r s i t y , J a n . 1 9 7 9 .
4.
C a r b o n e l l , J . G . , " T h e Counterplanning P r o c e s s : A Model o f D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g
in
Adverse
Situations,"
Tech.
report Computer
Science
Dept.,
C a r n e g i e - M e l l o n University, February 1979.
5.
C h a r n l a k , E., Towards
a Model
d i s s e r t a t i o n , M.I.T., 1 9 7 2 .
6.
C u l l l n g f o r d , R., Script Application:
Computer Understanding
Stories,
PhD d i s s e r t a t i o n , Yale U n i v e r s i t y , S e p t . 1 9 7 7 .
7.
N e w e l l , A., " P r o d u c t i o n s S y s t e m s : Models of Control S t r u c t u r e s " , In W . G .
C h a s e , Visual Information processing,
N e w York: Academic P r e s s , 1 9 7 3 , •
8.
Rich,
E.,
Building
and
Exploring
C a r n e g i e - M e l l o n U n i v e r s i t y , April 1 9 7 9 .
9.
Rosch,
E
Experimental
10.
R o s s , J . R., " O n t h e C y c l i c Nature of English Pronominalization",
Roman Jakobson, T h e Hague: Mouton & Co., 1 9 6 7 , .
11.
Rumelhart, D. E
" N o t e s on a Schema for S t o r i e s " , In B o b r o w , D . G . a n d
C o l l i n s , A.,
Representation
and Understanding,
N e w York: A c a d e m i c P r e s s
Inc, 1975, pp. 2 1 1 - 2 3 6 .
12.
S c h a n k , R . C , " T h e S t r u c t u r e of Episodes in Memory", In B o b r o w , D . G . a n d
C o l l i n s , A., Representation
and Understanding,
N e w York: A c a d e m i c P r e s s
Inc, 1975, pp. 2 3 7 - 2 7 2 .
13.
S c h a n k , R. C. and Abelson, R. P., Scripts,
Hillside, N J : L a w r e n c e Erlbaum, 1 9 7 7 .
14.
S c h a n k , R. C , W l l e n s k y , R., Carbonell, J . G., Kolodner, J . L. and H e n d l e r , J . A.,
M
of
Children's
User
Story
Models*
Models
of
Comprehension,
PhD
"Cognitive
Representations
of
Semantic
Psychology,
No. 104, 1975, p p . 1 9 2 - 2 3 3 .
of
Belief
PhD
Newspaper
dissertation,
Categories,
To
11
Honor
M
Goals,
Plans
and
Understanding,
30
"Representing
A t t i t u d e s : Some Primitive S t a t e s . "
C o m p u t e r S c i e n c e Department, Yale U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 8 .
Tech.
report 143,
S c h m i d t , C , Sridharan, N. and Goodson, J . , " T h e Plan R e c o g n i t i o n P r o b l e m , "
Artificial
Intelligence,
Vol. 11, No. 2, 1 9 7 7 , p p . 4 5 - 8 3 .
Wilensky, R
Understanding
University, Sept. 1978.
M
Goal-Based
Stories,
PhD
dissertation.
Yale