Developing argumentation-based persuasive agents that leverage human argumentative techniques is an open challenge in the computational argumentation field. In this paper, we propose a computational perspective on the psychological techniques people tend to follow
during persuasion interactions drawing on psychological evidence. We
focus on four well-established psychological techniques, model and investigate them using a recently proposed argumentative computational
framework. Our investigation reveals both similarities and gaps between
the two which can be either leveraged or addressed in the design of
argumentation-based persuasive agents and future theoretical developments.