Ethos and Pathos in Online Group Discussions: Corpora for Polarisation Issues in Social Media
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines the use of rhetorical strategies like ethos (appeals to credibility) and pathos (appeals to emotion) in online group discussions about polarizing social and political issues.
- The researchers collected and analyzed large corpora of online discussions to better understand how these strategies are deployed and how they contribute to polarization.
- The findings have implications for developing tools and interventions to address harmful polarization on social media platforms.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at how people use different persuasive techniques when discussing controversial topics online. Specifically, the researchers were interested in how people try to establish their credibility (ethos) and appeal to emotions (pathos) in these discussions.
To do this, the researchers gathered and analyzed large datasets of online conversations about polarizing issues. By studying these real-world examples, they aimed to better understand how these persuasive strategies are used and how they contribute to increased division and polarization on social media.
The insights from this research could help develop new tools and approaches to address harmful levels of polarization that often arise in online discussions about sensitive social and political topics. For example, platforms could use this knowledge to design interventions that discourage overly emotional or biased rhetoric and instead promote more balanced, fact-based dialogue.
Technical Explanation
The researchers collected two large corpora of online discussions - one focused on political issues and another on topics related to gender and sexuality. They then used computational linguistic techniques to identify and analyze the use of ethos (appeals to credibility, expertise, or moral character) and pathos (appeals to emotion) within these discussions.
The analysis revealed patterns in how these rhetorical strategies were deployed, such as differences between initial posts and subsequent responses, and variations across different controversial topics. The findings suggest that polarizing issues tend to elicit more emotive language and attempts to establish one's credibility, which can further entrench existing divides.
These insights build on prior work on measuring online polarization and analyzing the role of emotions in opinion expression. The corpora developed in this study could also enable further research into using NLP techniques to counter harmful speech online.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge that their study is limited to a specific set of online discussion platforms and topics. The generalizability of the findings to other contexts or platforms is not fully clear. Additionally, the analysis focuses on identifying the use of ethos and pathos, but does not directly assess the effectiveness or persuasiveness of these rhetorical strategies.
Further research could explore how the use of ethos and pathos evolves over the course of longer discussions, and investigate the interplay between these strategies and other factors, such as the influence of information sources. It would also be valuable to examine how users perceive the credibility and persuasiveness of messages that employ these rhetorical appeals.
Overall, this study provides a valuable contribution to our understanding of how polarizing online discussions unfold, but additional research is needed to fully elucidate the complex dynamics at play and develop effective interventions.
Conclusion
This paper offers insights into the use of ethos and pathos in online discussions about polarizing social and political issues. By analyzing large corpora of real-world conversations, the researchers have shed light on how people attempt to establish their credibility and appeal to emotions when engaging with contentious topics online.
The findings have important implications for addressing harmful levels of polarization on social media platforms. Developing a deeper understanding of these persuasive strategies could inform the design of new tools and interventions to promote more balanced, constructive dialogue and mitigate the spread of divisive rhetoric. Further research in this area has the potential to make valuable contributions to the ongoing effort to create healthier online communities.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Ethos and Pathos in Online Group Discussions: Corpora for Polarisation Issues in Social Media
Ewelina Gajewska, Katarzyna Budzynska, Barbara Konat, Marcin Koszowy, Konrad Kiljan, Maciej Uberna, He Zhang
Growing polarisation in society caught the attention of the scientific community as well as news media, which devote special issues to this phenomenon. At the same time, digitalisation of social interactions requires to revise concepts from social science regarding establishment of trust, which is a key feature of all human interactions, and group polarisation, as well as new computational tools to process large quantities of available data. Existing methods seem insufficient to tackle the problem fully, thus, we propose to approach the problem by investigating rhetorical strategies employed by individuals in polarising discussions online. To this end, we develop multi-topic and multi-platform corpora with manual annotation of appeals to ethos and pathos, two modes of persuasion in Aristotelian rhetoric. It can be employed for training language models to advance the study of communication strategies online on a large scale. With the use of computational methods, our corpora allows an investigation of recurring patterns in polarising exchanges across topics of discussion and media platforms, and conduct both quantitative and qualitative analyses of language structures leading to and engaged in polarisation.
Read more8/13/2024
1
Dynamics of Ideological Biases of Social Media Users
Mohammed Shahid Modi, James Flamino, Boleslaw K. Szymanski
Humanity for centuries has perfected skills of interpersonal interactions and evolved patterns that enable people to detect lies and deceiving behavior of others in face-to-face settings. Unprecedented growth of people's access to mobile phones and social media raises an important question: How does this new technology influence people's interactions and support the use of traditional patterns? In this article, we answer this question for homophily-driven patterns in social media. In our previous studies, we found that, on a university campus, changes in student opinions were driven by the desire to hold popular opinions. Here, we demonstrate that the evolution of online platform-wide opinion groups is driven by the same desire. We focus on two social media: Twitter and Parler, on which we tracked the political biases of their users. On Parler, an initially stable group of Right-biased users evolved into a permanent Right-leaning echo chamber dominating weaker, transient groups of members with opposing political biases. In contrast, on Twitter, the initial presence of two large opposing bias groups led to the evolution of a bimodal bias distribution, with a high degree of polarization. We capture the movement of users from the initial to final bias groups during the tracking period. We also show that user choices are influenced by side-effects of homophily. Users entering the platform attempt to find a sufficiently large group whose members hold political biases within the range sufficiently close to their own. If successful, they stabilize their biases and become permanent members of the group. Otherwise, they leave the platform. We believe that the dynamics of users' behavior uncovered in this article create a foundation for technical solutions supporting social groups on social media and socially aware networks.
Read more7/23/2024
0
Sampled Datasets Risk Substantial Bias in the Identification of Political Polarization on Social Media
Gabriele Di Bona, Emma Fraxanet, Bjorn Komander, Andrea Lo Sasso, Virginia Morini, Antoine Vendeville, Max Falkenberg, Alessandro Galeazzi
Following recent policy changes by X (Twitter) and other social media platforms, user interaction data has become increasingly difficult to access. These restrictions are impeding robust research pertaining to social and political phenomena online, which is critical due to the profound impact social media platforms may have on our societies. Here, we investigate the reliability of polarization measures obtained from different samples of social media data by studying the structural polarization of the Polish political debate on Twitter over a 24-hour period. First, we show that the political discussion on Twitter is only a small subset of the wider Twitter discussion. Second, we find that large samples can be representative of the whole political discussion on a platform, but small samples consistently fail to accurately reflect the true structure of polarization online. Finally, we demonstrate that keyword-based samples can be representative if keywords are selected with great care, but that poorly selected keywords can result in substantial political bias in the sampled data. Our findings demonstrate that it is not possible to measure polarization in a reliable way with small, sampled datasets, highlighting why the current lack of research data is so problematic, and providing insight into the practical implementation of the European Union's Digital Service Act which aims to improve researchers' access to social media data.
Read more7/1/2024
0
Hatred Stems from Ignorance! Distillation of the Persuasion Modes in Countering Conversational Hate Speech
Ghadi Alyahya, Abeer Aldayel
Examining the factors that the counterspeech uses are at the core of understanding the optimal methods for confronting hate speech online. Various studies have assessed the emotional base factors used in counter speech, such as emotional empathy, offensiveness, and hostility. To better understand the counterspeech used in conversations, this study distills persuasion modes into reason, emotion, and credibility and evaluates their use in two types of conversation interactions: closed (multi-turn) and open (single-turn) concerning racism, sexism, and religious bigotry. The evaluation covers the distinct behaviors seen with human-sourced as opposed to machine-generated counterspeech. It also assesses the interplay between the stance taken and the mode of persuasion seen in the counterspeech. Notably, we observe nuanced differences in the counterspeech persuasion modes used in open and closed interactions, especially in terms of the topic, with a general tendency to use reason as a persuasion mode to express the counterpoint to hate comments. The machine-generated counterspeech tends to exhibit an emotional persuasion mode, while human counters lean toward reason. Furthermore, our study shows that reason tends to obtain more supportive replies than other persuasion modes. The findings highlight the potential for incorporating persuasion modes into studies about countering hate speech, as they can serve as an optimal means of explainability and pave the way for the further adoption of the reply's stance and the role it plays in assessing what comprises the optimal counterspeech.
Read more7/17/2024