research-article

A Qualitative Analysis of the Persuasive Properties of Argumentation Schemes

Authors:

Ramon Ruiz-Dolz,

Joaquin Taverner,

Ana Garcia-Fornes,

Vicente BottiAuthors Info & Claims

UMAP '22: Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization

Pages 1 - 11

https://doi.org/10.1145/3503252.3531324

Published: 04 July 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Argumentation schemes are generalised patterns that provide a way to (partially) dissociate the content from the reasoning structure of the argument. On the other hand, Cialdini’s principles of persuasion provide a generic model to analyse the persuasive properties of human interaction (e.g., natural language). Establishing the relationship between principles of persuasion and argumentation schemes can contribute to the improvement of the argument-based human-computer interaction paradigm. In this work, we perform a qualitative analysis of the persuasive properties of argumentation schemes. For that purpose, we present a new study conducted on a population of over one hundred participants, where twelve different argumentation schemes are instanced into four different topics of discussion considering both stances (i.e., in favour and against). Participants are asked to relate these argumentation schemes with the perceived Cialdini’s principles of persuasion. From the results of our study, it is possible to conclude that some of the most commonly used patterns of reasoning in human communication have an underlying persuasive focus, regardless of how they are instanced in natural language argumentation (i.e., their stance, the domain, or their content).

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (Umap_rrd_video.mp4)

Presentation video of the paper: A Qualitative Analysis of the Persuasive Properties of Argumentation Schemes

Download
88.77 MB

References

[1]

Khalid Al Khatib, Michael Völske, Shahbaz Syed, Nikolay Kolyada, and Benno Stein. 2020. Exploiting Personal Characteristics of Debaters for Predicting Persuasiveness. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 7067–7072.

[2]

Khalid Al Khatib, Henning Wachsmuth, Matthias Hagen, and Benno Stein. 2017. Patterns of argumentation strategies across topics. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 1351–1357.

[3]

Roxanne El Baff, Henning Wachsmuth, Khalid Al Khatib, and Benno Stein. 2020. Analyzing the Persuasive Effect of Style in News Editorial Argumentation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics, 3154–3160.

[4]

Robert B Cialdini. 2001. The science of persuasion. Scientific American 284, 2 (2001), 76–81.

[5]

Ana Ciocarlan, Judith Masthoff, and Nir Oren. 2019. Actual persuasiveness: impact of personality, age and gender on message type susceptibility. In International Conference on Persuasive Technology. Springer, 283–294.

[6]

Angelo Costa, Stella Heras, Javier Palanca, Jaume Jordán, Paulo Novais, and Vicente Julián. 2017. Argumentation schemes for events suggestion in an e-Health platform. In International Conference on Persuasive Technology. Springer, 17–30.

[7]

Martin Gleize, Eyal Shnarch, Leshem Choshen, Lena Dankin, Guy Moshkowich, Ranit Aharonov, and Noam Slonim. 2019. Are you convinced? Choosing the more convincing evidence with a Siamese network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.08971(2019).

[8]

Emmanuel Hadoux and Anthony Hunter. 2019. Comfort or safety? Gathering and using the concerns of a participant for better persuasion. Argument & Computation 10, 2 (2019), 113–147.

[9]

Anthony Hunter, Lisa Chalaguine, Tomasz Czernuszenko, Emmanuel Hadoux, and Sylwia Polberg. 2019. Towards computational persuasion via natural language argumentation dialogues. In Joint German/Austrian Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Künstliche Intelligenz). Springer, 18–33.

Digital Library

[10]

Rosemary Josekutty Thomas. 2019. Personalised persuasive messages for behaviour change interventions: combining Cialdini’s principles and argumentation schemes. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Aberdeen.

[11]

John Lawrence and Chris Reed. 2016. Argument Mining Using Argumentation Scheme Structures. In COMMA. 379–390.

[12]

Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton, and Chris Reed. 2017. Argumentation schemes. History, classifications, and computational applications. History, Classifications, and Computational Applications (December 23, 2017). Macagno, F., Walton, D. & Reed, C(2017), 2493–2556.

[13]

Saif M Mohammad and Peter D Turney. 2013. Crowdsourcing a word–emotion association lexicon. Computational intelligence 29, 3 (2013), 436–465.

[14]

Ariel Monteserin and Analía Amandi. 2013. A reinforcement learning approach to improve the argument selection effectiveness in argumentation-based negotiation. Expert Systems with Applications 40, 6 (2013), 2182–2188.

Digital Library

[15]

Pradeep K Murukannaiah, Anup K Kalia, Pankaj R Telangy, and Munindar P Singh. 2015. Resolving goal conflicts via argumentation-based analysis of competing hypotheses. In 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). IEEE, 156–165.

[16]

Rita Orji, Regan L Mandryk, and Julita Vassileva. 2015. Gender, age, and responsiveness to Cialdini’s persuasion strategies. In International Conference on Persuasive Technology. Springer, 147–159.

[17]

Kiemute Oyibo, Rita Orji, and Julita Vassileva. 2017. Investigation of the Influence of Personality Traits on Cialdini’s Persuasive Strategies.PPT@ PERSUASIVE 2017(2017), 8–20.

[18]

Stefan Palan and Christian Schitter. 2018. Prolific. ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 17 (2018), 22–27.

[19]

James W Pennebaker, Ryan L Boyd, Kayla Jordan, and Kate Blackburn. 2015. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Technical Report. University of Texas.

[20]

Henry Prakken, Adam Wyner, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Katie Atkinson. 2015. A formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+. Journal of Logic and Computation 25, 5 (2015), 1141–1166.

[21]

Antonio Rago, Oana Cocarascu, Christos Bechlivanidis, David Lagnado, and Francesca Toni. 2021. Argumentative explanations for interactive recommendations. Artificial Intelligence 296 (2021), 103506.

[22]

Justus J Randolph. 2005. Free-Marginal Multirater Kappa (multirater K [free]): An Alternative to Fleiss’ Fixed-Marginal Multirater Kappa.Online submission (2005).

[23]

Christof Rapp. 2011. Aristotle’s rhetoric. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(2011).

[24]

Ramon Ruiz-Dolz. 2020. Towards an Artificial Argumentation System. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2020. ijcai.org, 5206–5207.

[25]

Ramon Ruiz-Dolz, Jose Alemany, Stella Heras, and Ana García-Fornes. 2021. On the Prevention of Privacy Threats: How Can We Persuade Our Social Network Users?arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10004(2021).

[26]

Ramon Ruiz-Dolz, Stella Heras, José Alemany, and Ana García-Fornes. 2019. Towards an Argumentation System for Assisting Users with Privacy Management in Online Social Networks. In CMNA@ PERSUASIVE. 17–28.

[27]

Donald Sharpe. 2015. Chi-square test is statistically significant: Now what?Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 20, 1(2015), 8.

[28]

Swapna Somasundaran, Josef Ruppenhofer, and Janyce Wiebe. 2007. Detecting arguing and sentiment in meetings. In Proceedings of the 8th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue. 26–34.

[29]

Yi Song, Michael Heilman, Beata Beigman Klebanov, and Paul Deane. 2014. Applying argumentation schemes for essay scoring. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining. 69–78.

[30]

Richard S Sutton and Andrew G Barto. 2018. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press.

Digital Library

[31]

R Thomas, Nir Oren, and Judith Masthoff. 2018. ArguMessage: a system for automation of message generation using argumentation schemes. In Proceedings of the 18th Workshop on Computational Models of Argument (CMNA 2018). 27–31.

[32]

Rosemary Josekutty Thomas, Judith Masthoff, and Nir Oren. 2017. Adapting healthy eating messages to personality. In International Conference on Persuasive Technology. Springer, 119–132.

[33]

Rosemary J Thomas, Judith Masthoff, and Nir Oren. 2019. Can i influence you? development of a scale to measure perceived persuasiveness and two studies showing the use of the scale. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2 (2019), 24.

[34]

Vladimir Vapnik. 1998. The support vector method of function estimation. In Nonlinear modeling. Springer, 55–85.

[35]

John Paul Vargheese, Somayajulu Sripada, Judith Masthoff, and Nir Oren. 2016. Persuasive strategies for encouraging social interaction for older adults. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 32, 3(2016), 190–214.

[36]

Serena Villata, M. Sahbi Benlamine, Elena Cabrio, Claude Frasson, and Fabien Gandon. 2018. Assessing Persuasion in Argumentation through Emotions and Mental States. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS 2018, Melbourne, Florida, USA. May 21-23 2018. AAAI Press, 134–139.

[37]

Douglas Walton. 2009. Argumentation theory: A very short introduction. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, 1–22.

[38]

Douglas Walton. 2021. Argumentation Schemes & Their Application in Argument Mining. Windsor Studies in Argumentation(2021).

[39]

Douglas Walton and Fabrizio Macagno. 2015. A classification system for argumentation schemes. Argument & Computation 6, 3 (2015), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2015.1123772

[40]

Douglas Walton, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.

[41]

Janyce Wiebe and Ellen Riloff. 2005. Creating subjective and objective sentence classifiers from unannotated texts. In International conference on intelligent text processing and computational linguistics. Springer, 486–497.

Digital Library

Cited By

Ruiz-Dolz RHeras SGarcía-Fornes A(2025)An introduction to computational argumentation research from a human argumentation perspectiveAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-025-09692-x39:1Online publication date: 1-Jun-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10458-025-09692-x
Zhang ZGao JDhaliwal RLi T(2023)VISAR: A Human-AI Argumentative Writing Assistant with Visual Programming and Rapid Draft PrototypingProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3586183.3606800(1-30)Online publication date: 29-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3586183.3606800
Ruiz-Dolz RTaverner JHeras Barberá SGarcía-Fornes A(2023)Persuasion-enhanced computational argumentative reasoning through argumentation-based persuasive frameworksUser Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction10.1007/s11257-023-09370-134:1(229-258)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11257-023-09370-1

Index Terms

A Qualitative Analysis of the Persuasive Properties of Argumentation Schemes
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Knowledge representation and reasoning
    2. Philosophical/theoretical foundations of artificial intelligence
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
  2. Interaction design
    1. Interaction design theory, concepts and paradigms

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Persuasion-enhanced computational argumentative reasoning through argumentation-based persuasive frameworks
Abstract
One of the greatest challenges of computational argumentation research consists of creating persuasive strategies that can effectively influence the behaviour of a human user. From the human perspective, argumentation represents one of the most ...
Towards Ethical Argumentative Persuasive Chatbots
Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, Norms, and Ethics for Governance of Multi-Agent Systems XVI
Abstract
Argumentative persuasive technologies are technologies that use argumentation in order to persuade the persuadee to believe in something or not, which can later lead the persuadee to perform an action or not. The use of such tools opens numerous ...
Persuasive Negotiation Dialogues using Rhetorical Arguments
AAMAS '17: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems

In persuasive negotiation dialogues, agents, with different interests and goals, exchange proposals that are supported by rhetorical arguments such as threats, rewards, or appeals. The aim of this thesis is to investigate such dialogue systems, where ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

UMAP '22: Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization

July 2022

360 pages

ISBN:9781450392075

DOI:10.1145/3503252

General Chairs:
Alejandro Bellogin
Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain
,
Ludovico Boratto
University of Cagliari, Italy
,
Olga C. Santos
UNED, Spain
,
Program Chairs:
Liliana Ardissono
Universita di Torino, Italy
,
Bart Knijnenburg
Clemson University, United States

Copyright © 2022 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 04 July 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

MINISTERIO DE CIENCIA E INNOVACIÓN
EU Horizon 2020
Conselleria de Educación, Investigación, Cultura y Deporte

Conference

UMAP '22

Sponsor:

UMAP '22: 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization

July 4 - 7, 2022

Barcelona, Spain

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 162 of 633 submissions, 26%

Upcoming Conference

UMAP '25

Sponsor:
sigchi
sigchi

33rd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization

June 16 - 19, 2025

New York City , NY , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
204
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)45
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8

Reflects downloads up to 01 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Ruiz-Dolz RHeras SGarcía-Fornes A(2025)An introduction to computational argumentation research from a human argumentation perspectiveAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-025-09692-x39:1Online publication date: 1-Jun-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10458-025-09692-x
Zhang ZGao JDhaliwal RLi T(2023)VISAR: A Human-AI Argumentative Writing Assistant with Visual Programming and Rapid Draft PrototypingProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3586183.3606800(1-30)Online publication date: 29-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3586183.3606800
Ruiz-Dolz RTaverner JHeras Barberá SGarcía-Fornes A(2023)Persuasion-enhanced computational argumentative reasoning through argumentation-based persuasive frameworksUser Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction10.1007/s11257-023-09370-134:1(229-258)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11257-023-09370-1

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten