Americans spend about a third of their time online, with many participating in on line conversations on social and political issues. We hypothesize that social media arguments on such issues may be more en gaging and persuasive than traditional me dia summaries, and that particular types of people may be more or less convinced by particular styles of argument, e.g. emo tional arguments may resonate with some personalities while factual arguments res onate with others. We report a set of exper iments 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 be lief change is affected by personality fac tors, with conscientious, open and agree able people being more convinced by emo tional arguments.
展开▼
