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.
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.
@cite_38
2518510348 2250287365 2009127721 2018206893
We propose a new task in the field of computational argumentation in which we investigate qualitative properties of Web arguments, namely their convincingness. We cast the problem as relation classification, where a pair of arguments having the same stance to the same prompt is judged. We annotate a large datasets of 16k pairs of arguments over 32 topics and investigate whether the relation “A is more convincing than B” exhibits properties of total ordering; these findings are used as global constraints for cleaning the crowdsourced data. We propose two tasks: (1) predicting which argument from an argument pair is more convincing and (2) ranking all arguments to the topic based on their convincingness. We experiment with feature-rich SVM and bidirectional LSTM and obtain 0.76-0.78 accuracy and 0.35-0.40 Spearman’s correlation in a cross-topic evaluation. We release the newly created corpus UKPConvArg1 and the experimental software under open licenses. The ability to analyze the adequacy of supporting information is necessary for determining the strength of an argument.1 This is especially the case for online user comments, which often consist of arguments lacking proper substantiation and reasoning. Thus, we develop a framework for automatically classifying each proposition as UNVERIFIABLE, VERIFIABLE NONEXPERIENTIAL, or VERIFIABLE EXPERIENTIAL2, where the appropriate type of support is reason, evidence, and optional evidence, respectively3. Once the existing support for propositions are identified, this classification can provide an estimate of how adequately the arguments have been supported. We build a goldstandard dataset of 9,476 sentences and clauses from 1,047 comments submitted to an eRulemaking platform and find that Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifiers trained with n-grams and additional features capturing the verifiability and experientiality exhibit statistically significant improvement over the unigram baseline, achieving a macro-averaged F1 of 68.99 . This paper examines the hypothesis that information flow, from device to user, is a vital part of skilled activity in human-computer interaction. Two studies are reported. The first study questions users of keyboard-driven word processors about the effects of cursor-movement, finding and word-deletion commands in various contexts. The second study questions users of the Apple Macintosh-based systems, MacWrite and Microsoft Word, about the behaviour of the menu-driven find command. In both studies it is discovered that users often do not know the precise effects of frequently-used actions, such as the final position of the cursor, even though these effects are vital for future planning. It is concluded that even experienced users must acquire the information they need from the device's display during interactions, and that they do not necessarily remember regular details that are available in this way. This conclusion conflicts with those current models of user psychology that assume routine skill relies on complete mental specifications of methods for performing tasks. With thousands of learners watching the same online lecture videos, analyzing video watching patterns provides a unique opportunity to understand how students learn with videos. This paper reports a large-scale analysis of in-video dropout and peaks in viewership and student activity, using second-by-second user interaction data from 862 videos in four Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) on edX. We find higher dropout rates in longer videos, re-watching sessions (vs first-time), and tutorials (vs lectures). Peaks in re-watching sessions and play events indicate points of interest and confusion. Results show that tutorials (vs lectures) and re-watching sessions (vs first-time) lead to more frequent and sharper peaks. In attempting to reason why peaks occur by sampling 80 videos, we observe that 61 of the peaks accompany visual transitions in the video, e.g., a slide view to a classroom view. Based on this observation, we identify five student activity patterns that can explain peaks: starting from the beginning of a new material, returning to missed content, following a tutorial step, replaying a brief segment, and repeating a non-visual explanation. Our analysis has design implications for video authoring, editing, and interface design, providing a richer understanding of video learning on MOOCs.