Americans spend about a third of their time online, with many participating in online conversations on social and political issues. We hypothesize that social media arguments on such issues may be more engaging and persuasive than traditional media summaries, and that particular types of people may be more or less convinced by particular styles of argument, e.g. emotional arguments may resonate with some personalities while factual arguments resonate with others. We report a set of experiments testing at large scale how audience variables interact with argument style to affect the persuasiveness of an argument, an under-researched topic within natural language processing. We show that belief change is affected by personality factors, with conscientious, open and agreeable people being more convinced by emotional arguments.
@cite_38: Deciding whether a claim is true or false often requires understanding the evidence supporting and contradicting the claim. However, when learning about a controversial claim, human biases and viewpoints may affect which evidence documents are considered "trustworthy" or credible. It is important to overcome this bias and know both viewpoints to get a balanced perspective. In this paper, we study various factors that affect learning about the truthfulness of controversial claims. We designed a user study to understand the impact of these factors. Specifically, we studied the impact of presenting evidence with contrasting viewpoints and source expertise rating on how users accessed the evidence documents. This would help us optimize how to teach users about controversial topics in the most effective way, and to design better claim verification systems. We find that users do not seek contrasting viewpoints by themselves, but explicitly presenting contrasting evidence helps them get a well-rounded understanding of the topic. Furthermore, explicit knowledge of the source credibility and the context not only affects what users read, but also how credible they perceive the document to be.
Other work @cite_38 explores how user-interface factors (e.g., number and order of argument presentation, whether and how arguments are rated) affect how readers process arguments. Several factors increased the number of passages read, including explicitly presenting contrasting viewpoints simultaneously. This exercise caused people with strong beliefs (about the healthiness of milk) to moderate their views after 20-30 minutes of concentrated study. We do not concentrate on interface factors, instead exploring how persuasiveness relates to audience factors and argumentative style. Also our experiments are run online with hundreds of users, rather than as a controlled study in the lab.