Categorical Emotions or Appraisals - Which Emotion Model Explains Argument Convincingness Better?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.07162v3
• Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 12:32:20 GMT
• Title: Categorical Emotions or Appraisals - Which Emotion Model Explains Argument Convincingness Better?
• Authors: Lynn Greschner, Meike Bauer, Sabine Weber, Roman Klinger,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 7.221399245137941
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Reflecting Twice before Speaking with Empathy: Self-Reflective Alternating Inference for Empathy-Aware End-to-End Spoken Dialogue [53.95386201009769]
  We introduce EmpathyEval, a descriptive natural-language-based evaluation model for assessing empathetic quality in spoken dialogues.<n>We propose ReEmpathy, an end-to-end Spoken Language Models that enhances empathetic dialogue through a novel Empathetic Self-Reflective Alternating Inference mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-26T09:04:50Z)
• Trust Me, I Can Convince You: The Contextualized Argument Appraisal Framework [7.888859893528601]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-22T14:32:55Z)
• 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)
• Beyond Context to Cognitive Appraisal: Emotion Reasoning as a Theory of Mind Benchmark for Large Language Models [11.255011967393838]
  This study advances beyond surface-level perceptual features to investigate how large language models (LLMs) reason about others' emotional states using contextual information.<n>Grounded in Cognitive Appraisal Theory, we curate a specialized ToM evaluation dataset1 to assess both forward reasoning - from context to emotion- and backward reasoning - from emotion to inferred context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-31T01:18:04Z)
• 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)
• Speech Synthesis with Mixed Emotions [77.05097999561298]
  We propose a novel formulation that measures the relative difference between the speech samples of different emotions. We then incorporate our formulation into a sequence-to-sequence emotional text-to-speech framework. At run-time, we control the model to produce the desired emotion mixture by manually defining an emotion attribute vector.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-11T15:45:58Z)
• Seeking Subjectivity in Visual Emotion Distribution Learning [93.96205258496697]
  Visual Emotion Analysis (VEA) aims to predict people's emotions towards different visual stimuli. Existing methods often predict visual emotion distribution in a unified network, neglecting the inherent subjectivity in its crowd voting process. We propose a novel textitSubjectivity Appraise-and-Match Network (SAMNet) to investigate the subjectivity in visual emotion distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-25T02:20:03Z)
• 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)
• A Circular-Structured Representation for Visual Emotion Distribution Learning [82.89776298753661]
  We propose a well-grounded circular-structured representation to utilize the prior knowledge for visual emotion distribution learning. To be specific, we first construct an Emotion Circle to unify any emotional state within it. On the proposed Emotion Circle, each emotion distribution is represented with an emotion vector, which is defined with three attributes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-23T14:53:27Z)
• MIME: MIMicking Emotions for Empathetic Response Generation [82.57304533143756]
  Current approaches to empathetic response generation view the set of emotions expressed in the input text as a flat structure. We argue that empathetic responses often mimic the emotion of the user to a varying degree, depending on its positivity or negativity and content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-04T00:35:47Z)
• 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.