HackerPapers

arXiv:1602.01103cs.SI

Winning Arguments: Interaction Dynamics and Persuasion Strategies in Good-faith Online Discussions

Chenhao Tan, Vlad Niculae, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Lillian Lee

Abstract

Changing someone's opinion is arguably one of the most important challenges of social interaction. The underlying process proves difficult to study: it is hard to know how someone's opinions are formed and whether and how someone's views shift. Fortunately, ChangeMyView, an active community on Reddit, provides a platform where users present their own opinions and reasoning, invite others to contest them, and acknowledge when the ensuing discussions change their original views. In this work, we study these interactions to understand the mechanisms behind persuasion. We find that persuasive arguments are characterized by interesting patterns of interaction dynamics, such as participant entry-order and degree of back-and-forth exchange. Furthermore, by comparing similar counterarguments to the same opinion, we show that language factors play an essential role. In particular, the interplay between the language of the opinion holder and that of the counterargument provides highly predictive cues of persuasiveness. Finally, since even in this favorable setting people may not be persuaded, we investigate the problem of determining whether someone's opinion is susceptible to being changed at all. For this more difficult task, we show that stylistic choices in how the opinion is expressed carry predictive power.

arXiv comments
12 pages, 10 figures, to appear in Proceedings of WWW 2016, data and more at https://chenhaot.com/pages/changemyview.html (v2 made a minor correction on submission rules in ChangeMyView.)
Journal reference
DOI
doi:10.1145/2872427.2883081
Subjects
cs.SISocial and Information Networks cs.CLComputation and Language physics.soc-phPhysics and Society

On Hacker News

Linked by 3 identifiable commenters in 3 comments across 3 threads, from Apr 2017 to Apr 2025.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments3 threads

    • The researchers argue that the ends justify the unethical means because they believe their research is meaningful. I believe their experiment is flawed and lacks rigor. The delta metric is weak, they fail to control for bot-bot contamination, and the lack of statistical…

      thomascountzView on HNParent context

    • You’re not using effective arguments that will change someone’s point of view. I believe climate change is coming but trying to convince someone they should change because they are a Bad Person if they don’t change their ways, or that some unspecified type of fuckedness is…

      indemnityView on HNParent context

    • Here's a link to the scientific paper referenced in the article itself: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01103v1.pdf The key practical findings are in Section 9 on page 10.

      ekpyroticView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.