Trust Me, I Can Convince You: The Contextualized Argument Appraisal Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17844v1
• Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 14:32:55 GMT
• Title: Trust Me, I Can Convince You: The Contextualized Argument Appraisal Framework
• Authors: Lynn Greschner, Sabine Weber, Roman Klinger,
• Abstract summary: We propose the Contextualized Argument Appraisal Framework that contextualizes the interplay between the sender, receiver, and argument.<n>It includes emotion labels, appraisals, such as argument familiarity, response urgency, and expected effort, as well as convincingness variables.<n>The analysis of the resulting corpus of 800 arguments, each annotated by 5 participants, reveals that convincingness is positively correlated with positive emotions.
• Score: 7.888859893528601
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Emotions, which influence how convincing an argument is, are developed in context of the self and sender, and therefore require modeling the cognitive evaluation process. While binary emotionality has been studied in argument mining, and the cognitive appraisal has been modeled in general emotion analysis, these fields have not been brought together yet. We therefore propose the Contextualized Argument Appraisal Framework that contextualizes the interplay between the sender, receiver, and argument. It includes emotion labels, appraisals, such as argument familiarity, response urgency, and expected effort, as well as convincingness variables. To evaluate the framework and pave the way to computational modeling, we perform a study in a role-playing scenario, mimicking real-world exposure to arguments, asking participants to 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 the perceived sender of the argument. The analysis of the resulting corpus of 800 arguments, each annotated by 5 participants, reveals that convincingness is positively correlated with positive emotions (e.g., trust) and negatively correlated with negative emotions (e.g., anger). The appraisal variables disclose the importance of the argument familiarity. For most participants, the content of the argument itself is the primary driver of the emotional response.

Related papers

• A Unified Spoken Language Model with Injected Emotional-Attribution Thinking for Human-like Interaction [50.05919688888947]
  This paper presents a unified spoken language model for emotional intelligence, enhanced by a novel data construction strategy termed Injected Emotional-Attribution Thinking (IEAT)<n>IEAT incorporates user emotional states and their underlying causes into the model's internal reasoning process, enabling emotion-aware reasoning to be internalized rather than treated as explicit supervision.<n> Experiments on the Human-like Spoken Dialogue Systems Challenge (HumDial) Emotional Intelligence benchmark demonstrate that the proposed approach achieves top-ranked performance across emotional trajectory modeling, emotional reasoning, and empathetic response generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T14:07:30Z)
• Categorical Emotions or Appraisals - Which Emotion Model Explains Argument Convincingness Better? [7.221399245137941]
  We argue that the emotion an argument evokes in a recipient is subjective.<n>It depends on the recipient's goals, standards, prior knowledge, and stance.<n>This work presents the first systematic comparison between emotion models for convincingness prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T14:53:04Z)
• Will Annotators Disagree? Identifying Subjectivity in Value-Laden Arguments [4.62776435232425]
  We explore methods for identifying subjectivity in recognizing the human values that motivate arguments.<n>Our experiments show that direct subjectivity identification significantly improves the model performance of flagging subjective arguments.<n>Our proposed methods can help identify arguments that individuals may interpret differently, fostering a more nuanced annotation process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T13:59:34Z)
• Fearful Falcons and Angry Llamas: Emotion Category Annotations of Arguments by Humans and LLMs [9.088303226909277]
  We crowdsource subjective annotations of emotion categories in a German argument corpus and evaluate automatic labeling methods.<n>We find that emotion categories enhance the prediction of emotionality in arguments.<n>Across all prompt settings and models, automatic predictions show a high recall but low precision for predicting anger and fear.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T15:41:47Z)
• CauESC: A Causal Aware Model for Emotional Support Conversation [79.4451588204647]
  Existing approaches ignore the emotion causes of the distress. They focus on the seeker's own mental state rather than the emotional dynamics during interaction between speakers. We propose a novel framework CauESC, which firstly recognizes the emotion causes of the distress, as well as the emotion effects triggered by the causes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-31T11:30:24Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [47.84663434179473]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way.<n>Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Dimensional Modeling of Emotions in Text with Appraisal Theories: Corpus Creation, Annotation Reliability, and Prediction [14.555520007106656]
  In psychology, the class of emotion theories known as appraisal theories aims at explaining the link between events and emotions. We analyze the suitability of appraisal theories for emotion analysis in text with the goal of understanding if appraisal concepts can reliably be reconstructed by annotators. Our comparison of text classification methods to human annotators shows that both can reliably detect emotions and appraisals with similar performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-10T17:20:17Z)
• Persua: A Visual Interactive System to Enhance the Persuasiveness of Arguments in Online Discussion [52.49981085431061]
  Enhancing people's ability to write persuasive arguments could contribute to the effectiveness and civility in online communication. We derived four design goals for a tool that helps users improve the persuasiveness of arguments in online discussions. Persua is an interactive visual system that provides example-based guidance on persuasive strategies to enhance the persuasiveness of arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-16T08:07:53Z)
• Emotion-aware Chat Machine: Automatic Emotional Response Generation for Human-like Emotional Interaction [55.47134146639492]
  This article proposes a unifed end-to-end neural architecture, which is capable of simultaneously encoding the semantics and the emotions in a post. Experiments on real-world data demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms the state-of-the-art methods in terms of both content coherence and emotion appropriateness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-06T06:26:15Z)
• A computational model implementing subjectivity with the 'Room Theory'. The case of detecting Emotion from Text [68.8204255655161]
  This work introduces a new method to consider subjectivity and general context dependency in text analysis. By using similarity measure between words, we are able to extract the relative relevance of the elements in the benchmark. This method could be applied to all the cases where evaluating subjectivity is relevant to understand the relative value or meaning of a text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-12T21:26:04Z)
• What Changed Your Mind: The Roles of Dynamic Topics and Discourse in Argumentation Process [78.4766663287415]
  This paper presents a study that automatically analyzes the key factors in argument persuasiveness. We propose a novel neural model that is able to track the changes of latent topics and discourse in argumentative conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T04:27:48Z)

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.