A Study on Consensus Building Mechanism Based on Kansei ~Consideration of Experimental Tasks that Cause Conflicts

• Published in: Human-Computer Interaction. Theoretical Approaches and Design Methods pp. 222 - 231
• Main Authors: Kamakari, Ryota, Yamawaki, Mizuki, Sakamoto, Yoshiki, Ueda, Kimi, Ishii, Hirotake, Shimoda, Hiroshi, Ito, Kyoko
• Format: Book Chapter
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing
• Series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science
• Subjects: Communication; Consensus building; Experimental task; Kansei
• ISBN: 3031053109; 9783031053108
• ISSN: 0302-9743; 1611-3349
• DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-05311-5_15

We are engaged in a variety of consensus-building activities in our daily lives. In order to build consensus, it is necessary to reach a single conclusion unanimously. Therefore, if there are conflicting opinions, they need to be resolved. To deal with this problem, it is necessary to conduct pleasant communication during consensus building in order for both parties to keep a good relationship, and Kansei has been found to be important for this purpose. Until now, there have not been many studies from the perspective of “Kansei”. And in actual important consensus-building situations, the interlocutors are confident and particular about their opinions, and they often do not bend their opinions to each other, which causes conflicts. In order to simulate such situation to conduct a consensus building experiment, it is necessary to develop tasks that allow the experimental participants to engage seriously even in the laboratory room. Therefore, in this study, we have attempted to develop a new task meeting three requirements; (1) The process of consensus building does not involve concessions but conflicts. (2) Sufficient time and the number of statements for consensus building can be secured for analysis. (3) The process of consensus building can be observed and recorded in detail. And we conducted consensus-building experiments using the developed task. As a result, it was found that there was no ceding and conflicts occur, and that the time and number of statements required for process analysis of consensus building might be more than those in our previous studies.