Moral Sparks in Social Media Narratives

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.19268v3
• Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 01:23:59 GMT
• Title: Moral Sparks in Social Media Narratives
• Authors: Ruijie Xi, Munindar P. Singh,
• Abstract summary: We examine interactions on social media to understand human moral judgments in real-life ethical scenarios. Specifically, we examine posts from a popular Reddit subreddit (i.e., a subcommunity) called r/AmITheAsshole.
• Score: 14.025768295979184
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: There is increasing interest in building computational models of moral reasoning by people to enable effective interaction by Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents. We examine interactions on social media to understand human moral judgments in real-life ethical scenarios. Specifically, we examine posts from a popular Reddit subreddit (i.e., a subcommunity) called r/AmITheAsshole, where authors and commenters share their moral judgments on who (i.e., which participant of the described scenario) is blameworthy. To investigate the underlying reasoning influencing moral judgments, we focus on excerpts-which we term moral sparks-from original posts that some commenters include to indicate what motivates their judgments. To this end, we examine how (1) events activating social commonsense and (2) linguistic signals affect the identified moral sparks and their subsequent judgments. By examining over 24672 posts and 175988 comments, we find that event-related negative character traits (e.g., immature and rude) attract attention and stimulate blame, implying a dependent relationship between character traits and moral values. Specifically, we focus on causal graphs involving events (c-events) that activate social commonsense. We observe that c-events are perceived with varying levels of informativeness, influencing moral spark and judgment assignment in distinct ways. This observation is reinforced by examining linguistic features describing semantically similar c-events. Moreover, language influencing commenters' cognitive processes enhances the probability of an excerpt becoming a moral spark, while factual and concrete descriptions tend to inhibit this effect.

Related papers

• Decoding moral judgement from text: a pilot study [0.0]
  Moral judgement is a complex human reaction that engages cognitive and emotional dimensions. We explore the feasibility of moral judgement decoding from text stimuli with passive brain-computer interfaces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T20:31:59Z)
• EMONA: Event-level Moral Opinions in News Articles [14.898581862558112]
  This paper initiates a new task to understand moral opinions towards events in news articles. We have created a new dataset, EMONA, and annotated event-level moral opinions in news articles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T07:57:19Z)
• MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks [49.60689355674541]
  A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments. We test whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with human participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:57:32Z)
• What Makes it Ok to Set a Fire? Iterative Self-distillation of Contexts and Rationales for Disambiguating Defeasible Social and Moral Situations [48.686872351114964]
  Moral or ethical judgments rely heavily on the specific contexts in which they occur. We introduce defeasible moral reasoning: a task to provide grounded contexts that make an action more or less morally acceptable. We distill a high-quality dataset of 1.2M entries of contextualizations and rationales for 115K defeasible moral actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T00:51:29Z)
• AITA Generating Moral Judgements of the Crowd with Reasoning [0.0]
  The project aims to generate comments with moral reasoning for stories with moral dilemmas using the AITA subreddit as a dataset. We will leverage the vast amount of data on the forum with the goal of generating coherent comments that align with the norms and values of the AITA community.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-21T10:27:22Z)
• ClarifyDelphi: Reinforced Clarification Questions with Defeasibility Rewards for Social and Moral Situations [81.70195684646681]
  We present ClarifyDelphi, an interactive system that learns to ask clarification questions. We posit that questions whose potential answers lead to diverging moral judgments are the most informative. Our work is ultimately inspired by studies in cognitive science that have investigated the flexibility in moral cognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T16:33:09Z)
• Understanding How People Rate Their Conversations [73.17730062864314]
  We conduct a study to better understand how people rate their interactions with conversational agents. We focus on agreeableness and extraversion as variables that may explain variation in ratings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-01T00:45:32Z)
• Aligning to Social Norms and Values in Interactive Narratives [89.82264844526333]
  We focus on creating agents that act in alignment with socially beneficial norms and values in interactive narratives or text-based games. We introduce the GALAD agent that uses the social commonsense knowledge present in specially trained language models to contextually restrict its action space to only those actions that are aligned with socially beneficial values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-04T09:54:33Z)
• A Corpus for Understanding and Generating Moral Stories [84.62366141696901]
  We propose two understanding tasks and two generation tasks to assess these abilities of machines. We present STORAL, a new dataset of Chinese and English human-written moral stories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-20T13:12:36Z)
• The Moral Debater: A Study on the Computational Generation of Morally Framed Arguments [19.741685596196454]
  An audience's prior beliefs and morals are strong indicators of how likely they will be affected by a given argument. We propose a system that effectively generates arguments focusing on different morals. Our results suggest that, particularly when prior beliefs are challenged, an audience becomes more affected by morally framed arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T08:07:13Z)
• Contextualized moral inference [12.574316678945195]
  We present a text-based approach that predicts people's intuitive judgment of moral vignettes. We show that a contextualized representation offers a substantial advantage over alternative representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-25T00:34:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.