Alongside its literal meaning, text also carries implicit social signals: information that is used by the reader to assign the author of the text a specific identity or make assumptions about the author’s character. The reader creates a mental image of the author which influences the interpretation of the presented information. This is especially relevant for argumentative text, where the credibility of the information might depend on who provides it. We therefore focus on the question: How do readers of an argument imagine its author? Using the ContArgA corpus, we study arguments annotated for convincingness and perceived author properties (level of education and Big Five personality traits). We find that annotators perceive an author to be similar to themselves when they agree with the stance of the argument. We also find that the envisioned personality traits and education level of the author are statistically significantly correlated with the argument’s convincingness. We conduct experiments with four generative LLMs and a RoBERTa-based regression model showing that LLMs do not replicate the annotators judgments. Argument convincingness can however provide a useful signal for modeling perceived author personality when it is explicitly used during training.

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 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.

Logical fallacies are common in public communication and can mislead audiences; fallacious arguments may still appear convincing despite lacking soundness, because convincingness is inherently subjective. We present the first computational study of how emotional framing interacts with fallacies and convincingness, using large language models (LLMs) to systematically change emotional appeals in fallacious arguments. We benchmark eight LLMs on injecting emotional appeal into fallacious arguments while preserving their logical structures, then use the best models to generate stimuli for a human study. Our results show that LLM-driven emotional framing reduces human fallacy detection in F1 by 14.5% on average. Humans perform better in fallacy detection when perceiving enjoyment than fear or sadness, and these three emotions also correlate with significantly higher convincingness compared to neutral or other emotion states. Our work has implications for AI-driven emotional manipulation in the context of fallacious argumentation.

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 and categorical values of emotions in arguments have received considerable attention in the research community, we argue that the emotion an argument evokes in a recipient is subjective. It depends on the recipient’s goals, standards, prior knowledge, and stance. Appraisal theories lend themselves as a link between the subjective cognitive assessment of events and emotions. They have been used in event-centric emotion analysis, but their suitability for assessing argument convincingness remains unexplored. In this paper, we evaluate whether appraisal theories are suitable for emotion analysis in arguments by considering subjective cognitive evaluations of the importance and impact of an argument on its receiver. Based on the annotations in the recently published ContArgA corpus, we perform zero-shot prompting experiments to evaluate the importance of gold-annotated and predicted emotions and appraisals for the assessment of the subjective convincingness labels. We find that, while categorical emotion information does improve convincingness prediction, the improvement is more pronounced with appraisals. This work presents the first systematic comparison between emotion models for convincingness prediction, demonstrating the advantage of appraisals, providing insights for theoretical and practical applications in computational argumentation.

Emotion annotation in text is a challenging task that often yields low inter-annotator agreement. Missing context, differences in world knowledge and extra-linguistic factors such as the author’s identity influence how emotions are perceived. When the text does not provide sufficient information, details about the author may help resolve ambiguity. We test the hypothesis that providing annotators with demographic information reduces disagreement in emotion annotation. We compare one group of annotators who sees each text alongside demographic information about its author, with a group who sees only the text. We find in our study with 500 annotators and 250 texts that displaying demographic information about the author of the text does not improve agreement between annotators, nor does it improve agreement with the gold label. The only exception are cases where the emotion polarity (positive or negative) is unclear. We also find that annotators perform overall better at identifying the correct emotion label when it aligns with gender stereotypes. Zero-shot prompting experiments with large language models do resemble the human annotation experimental results. Our findings suggest that providing demographic information is not a straightforward remedy for ambiguity in emotion annotation and careful consideration is needed when incorporating such data.

Arguments evoke emotions, influencing the effect of the argument itself. Not only the emotional intensity but also the category influences the argument’s effects, for instance, the willingness to adapt stances. While binary emotionality has been studied in argumentative texts, there is no work on discrete emotion categories (e.g., ‘anger’) in such data. To fill this gap, we crowdsource subjective annotations of emotion categories in a German argument corpus and evaluate automatic LLM-based labeling methods. Specifically, we compare three prompting strategies (zero-shot, one-shot, chain-of-thought) on three large instruction-tuned language models (Falcon-7b-instruct, Llama-3.1-8B-instruct, GPT-4o-mini). We further vary the definition of the output space to be binary (is there emotionality in the argument?), closed-domain (which emotion from a given label set is in the argument?), or open-domain (which emotion is in the argument?). We find that emotion categories enhance the prediction of emotionality in arguments, emphasizing the need for discrete emotion annotations in arguments. Across all prompt settings and models, automatic predictions show a high recall but low precision for predicting anger and fear, indicating a strong bias toward negative emotions.

Quality of Life (QoL) refers to a person’s subjective perception of various aspects of their life. For medical practitioners, it is one of the most important concepts for treatment decisions. Therefore, it is essential to understand in which aspects a medical condition affects a patient’s subjective perception of their life. With this paper, we focus on the under-resourced domain of mental health-related QoL, and contribute the first corpus to study and model this concept: We (1) annotate 240 Reddit posts with a set of 11 QoL aspects (such as ‘independence’, ‘mood’, or ‘relationships’) and their sentiment polarity. Based on this novel corpus, we (2) evaluate a pipeline to detect QoL mentions and classify them into aspects using open-domain aspect-based sentiment analysis. We find that users frequently discuss health-related QoL in their posts, focusing primarily on the aspects ‘relationships’ and ‘selfimage’. Our method reliably predicts such mentions and their sentiment, however, detecting fine-grained individual aspects remains challenging. An analysis of a large corpus of automatically labeled data reveals that social media content contains novel aspects pertinent to patients that are not covered by existing QoL taxonomies.

Demographics and cultural background of annotators influence the labels they assign in text annotation – for instance, an elderly woman might find it offensive to read a message addressed to a “bro”, but a male teenager might find it appropriate. It is therefore important to acknowledge label variations to not under-represent members of a society. Two research directions developed out of this observation in the context of using large language models (LLM) for data annotations, namely (1) studying biases and inherent knowledge of LLMs and (2) injecting diversity in the output by manipulating the prompt with demographic information. We combine these two strands of research and ask the question to which demographics an LLM resorts to when no demographics is given. To answer this question, we evaluate which attributes of human annotators LLMs inherently mimic. Furthermore, we compare non-demographic conditioned prompts and placebo-conditioned prompts (e.g., “you are an annotator who lives in house number 5”) to demographics-conditioned prompts (“You are a 45 year old man and an expert on politeness annotation. How do you rate instance”). We study these questions for politeness and offensiveness annotations on the POPQUORN data set, a corpus created in a controlled manner to investigate human label variations based on demographics which has not been used for LLM-based analyses so far. We observe notable influences related to gender, race, and age in demographic prompting, which contrasts with previous studies that found no such effects.

Many individuals affected by Social Anxiety Disorder turn to social media platforms to share their experiences and seek advice. This includes discussing the potential benefits of engaging with outdoor environments. As part of #SMM4H 2024, Shared Task 3 focuses on classifying the effects of outdoor spaces on social anxiety symptoms in Reddit posts. In our contribution to the task, we explore the effectiveness of domain-specific models (trained on social media data – SocBERT) against general domain models (trained on diverse datasets – BERT, RoBERTa, GPT-3.5) in predicting the sentiment related to outdoor spaces. Further, we assess the benefits of augmenting sparse human-labeled data with synthetic training instances and evaluate the complementary strengths of domain-specific and general classifiers using an ensemble model. Our results show that (1) fine-tuning small, domain-specific models generally outperforms large general language models in most cases. Only one large language model (GPT-4) exhibits performance comparable to the fine-tuned models (52% F1). Further, we find that (2) synthetic data does improve the performance of fine-tuned models in some cases, and (3) models do not appear to complement each other in our ensemble setup.