Trust Me, I Can Convince You: The Contextualized Argument Appraisal Framework
Emotions that somebody develops based on an argument do not only depend on the argument itself - they are also influenced by a subjective evaluation of the argument's potential impact on the self. For instance, an argument to ban plastic bottles might cause fear of losing a job for a bottle industry worker, which lowers the convincingness - presumably independent of its content. While binary emotionality of arguments has been studied, such cognitive appraisal models have only been proposed in other subtasks of emotion analysis, but not in the context of arguments and their convincingness. To fill this research gap, we propose the Contextualized Argument Appraisal Framework to model the interplay between the sender, receiver, and argument. We adapt established appraisal models from psychology to argument mining, including argument pleasantness, familiarity, response urgency, and expected effort, as well as convincingness variables. To evaluate the framework and pave the way for computational modeling, we develop a novel role-playing-based annotation setup, mimicking real-world exposure to arguments. Participants disclose their emotion, explain the main cause, the argument appraisal, and the perceived convincingness. To consider the subjective nature of such annotations, we also collect demographic data and personality traits of both the participants and ask them to disclose the same variables for their perception of the argument sender. The analysis of the resulting ContArgA corpus of 4000 annotations reveals that convincingness is positively correlated with positive emotions (e.g., trust) and negatively correlated with negative emotions (e.g., anger). The appraisal variables particularly point to the importance of the annotator's familiarity with the argument.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Argument MiningSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Categorical Emotions or Appraisals - Which Emotion Model Explains Argument Convincingness Better?
The convincingness of an argument does not only depend on its structure (logos), the person who makes the argument (ethos), but also on the emotion that it causes in the recipient (pathos). While the overall intensity an…
Argument Strength is in the Eye of the Beholder: Audience Effects in Persuasion
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 persu…
PersuasivenessAre You Convinced? Choosing the More Convincing Evidence with a Siamese Network
With the advancement in argument detection, we suggest to pay more attention to the challenging task of identifying the more convincing arguments. Machines capable of responding and interacting with humans in helpful way…
The Persuasive Power of Large Language Models
The increasing capability of Large Language Models to act as human-like social agents raises two important questions in the area of opinion dynamics. First, whether these agents can generate effective arguments that coul…
PersuasivenessGenerating Uncontextualized and Contextualized Questions for Document-Level Event Argument Extraction
This paper presents multiple question generation strategies for document-level event argument extraction. These strategies do not require human involvement and result in uncontextualized questions as well as contextualiz…
Event Argument ExtractionQuestion GenerationQuestion-Generation