Reasoning in social media: insights from Reddit "Change My View" submissions

PurposeComplex social interactions such as argumentation and persuasion are increasingly common in online communications. To better understand these interactions and their impacts on people and on the society, it is important for the authors to understand how people reason online such as when they need to justify themselves or convince others with their perspectives. Reasoning in online discussions is expectedly to be different from doing so offline, as one often communicates with others anonymously and asynchronously in such contexts (e.g. Reddit discussions). The purpose of this paper is to investigate people's reasoning behavior in online environments focusing on how they justify their perspectives.Design/methodology/approachIn this study, the authors examined how a subreddit Change My View (CMV) users offer their opinions and justify them through the lens of argumentation and reasoning. The authors annotated, 330 Reddit discussion original posts (OPs) to identify claims, rationales and supports for reasoning, i.e. personal experiences, definitions, domain expertise and external sources. The authors investigated the correlations among the occurrences of these supporting statements and whether they are related to the topics of the posts.FindingsThe findings suggest that if people mention their domain expertise, they tend to provide related personal experiences as well. Additionally, if the participants talk about the topic of domestic politics, they tend to utilize their personal experiences.Research limitations/implicationsFurther research may be conducted to help system designers. System designers (e.g. online debate systems, collective decision-making systems, etc.) may benefit from the findings to design systems by considering commonly used supporting statements, which may enhance people's reasoning and argumentation processes. The sample size is a small sample. The authors acknowledge that the small sample size of the study may limit the generalizability of the findings; however, it is still acceptable compared to the existing literature. One future study could be annotating a larger dataset to further probe the use of supporting statements in online reasoning.Practical implicationsThe authors' findings might be useful to understand how Reddit users are justifying their opinions as the reflection of their reasoning processes. In order to contribute further research in argumentation and reasoning in online platforms, the authors make the annotated dataset publicly available.Originality/valueTo best of the authors' knowledge, this study was one of a few studies whose purpose is to understand Reddit CMV users' reasoning processes. To understand how online users offer their reasons while providing their ideas is important to have effective communication processes and to improve online discussion experiences which are very common in today's digital era.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-08-2020-0330

[1]  D. Levasseur,et al.  The Dole humor myth and the risks of recontextualizing rhetoric , 1996 .

[2]  Lu Xiao,et al.  What influences online deliberation? A wikipedia study , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[3]  Bianca Wright,et al.  A conceptualization of factors affecting collaborative knowledge building in online environments , 2019, Online Inf. Rev..

[4]  Jodi Schneider,et al.  Automated argumentation mining to the rescue? Envisioning argumentation and decision-making support for debates in open online collaboration communities , 2014, ArgMining@ACL.

[5]  Critical thinking as argument analysis? , 1989 .

[6]  Jennifer Stromer-Galley,et al.  Context and Medium Matter: Expressing Disagreements Online and Face-to-Face in Political Deliberations , 2015 .

[7]  Mark J. Martinko,et al.  EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE, CAUSAL REASONING, AND THE SELF‐EFFICACY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS , 2003 .

[8]  Euripidis N. Loukis,et al.  Computer-supported G2G collaboration for public policy and decision-making , 2005, J. Enterp. Inf. Manag..

[9]  Werner Dees,et al.  Developing definitions of research information metadata as a wicked problem? Characterisation and solution by argumentation visualisation , 2016, Program.

[10]  Thanh C. Nguyen,et al.  Argumentation-based schema matching for multiple digital libraries , 2015, Online Inf. Rev..

[11]  Lu Xiao,et al.  Characterizing Susceptible Users on Reddit's ChangeMyView , 2019, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Social Media and Society.

[12]  Chris Reed,et al.  Mining Arguments From 19th Century Philosophical Texts Using Topic Based Modelling , 2014, ArgMining@ACL.

[13]  D. Kuhn,et al.  Is Reasoning a Fruitful Path to Changing Minds? , 2020, Discourse Processes.

[14]  P. Schellens,et al.  Argumentation Schemes in Persuasive Brochures , 2004 .

[15]  John M. Carroll,et al.  The Effects of Rationale Awareness on Individual Reflection Processes in Virtual Group Activities , 2013, Int. J. e Collab..

[16]  F. Solmsen The Aristotelian Tradition in Ancient Rhetoric , 2020, Landmark Essays.

[17]  Lydia B. Chilton,et al.  Cicero: Multi-Turn, Contextual Argumentation for Accurate Crowdsourcing , 2018, CHI.

[18]  J. Dessalles,et al.  Arguing, reasoning, and the interpersonal (cultural) functions of human consciousness , 2011, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[19]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Annotating Argument Schemes , 2020, Argumentation.

[20]  A. B. Hill,et al.  Cognitive and affective aspects of boredom. , 1985, British journal of psychology.

[21]  U. Hahn,et al.  Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation , 2012 .

[22]  Claire Cardie,et al.  Identifying Appropriate Support for Propositions in Online User Comments , 2014, ArgMining@ACL.

[23]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  A Bayesian Approach to Informal Argument Fallacies , 2006, Synthese.

[24]  Jeffrey V. Nickerson,et al.  Imperatives in Past Online Discussions: Another Helpful Source for Community Newcomers? , 2019, HICSS.

[25]  Liang Zhao,et al.  A natural language normalization approach to enhance social media text reasoning , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data).

[26]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Attentive Interaction Model: Modeling Changes in View in Argumentation , 2018, NAACL.

[27]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  Explanation and evidence in informal argument , 2000 .

[28]  Xu Chen,et al.  Extracting and reasoning about implicit behavioral evidences for detecting fraudulent online transactions in e-Commerce , 2016, Decis. Support Syst..

[29]  Jonathan T. Morgan,et al.  Annotating Social Acts: Authority Claims and Alignment Moves in Wikipedia Talk Pages , 2011 .

[30]  C. Kardash,et al.  The Effects of Goal Instructions and Text on the Generation of Counterarguments During Writing. , 2005 .

[31]  Heinrich Hußmann,et al.  Supporting debates with a real-time feedback system , 2014, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[32]  Love Ekenberg,et al.  Managing deliberation : tools for structuring discussions and analyzing representation , 2016 .

[33]  D. Sperber,et al.  On Grice's Theory of Conversation , 1981 .

[34]  Lu Xiao,et al.  Authority Claim in Rationale-Containing Online Comments , 2019, iConference.

[35]  R. Stuart Geiger,et al.  Participation in Wikipedia's article deletion processes , 2011, Int. Sym. Wikis.

[36]  Lu Xiao,et al.  An exploratory study of the effects of rationale awareness in project-based group activity , 2011, Proceedings of the 2011 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD).

[37]  Lu Xiao,et al.  The effects of a shared free form rationale space in collaborative learning activities , 2013, J. Syst. Softw..

[38]  Elena Musi,et al.  Analyzing the Semantic Types of Claims and Premises in an Online Persuasive Forum , 2017, ArgMining@EMNLP.

[39]  Simon Buckingham Shum,et al.  Socially augmented argumentation tools: Rationale, design and evaluation of a debate dashboard , 2014, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[40]  E. Michael Nussbaum,et al.  The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation , 2005 .

[41]  G. Forrai Clarifying our Ideas in Persuasion Dialogue , 2016 .

[42]  Stefan Decker,et al.  Arguments about deletion: how experience improves the acceptability of arguments in ad-hoc online task groups , 2013, CSCW.

[43]  Douglas Walton,et al.  What is Reasoning? What Is an Argument? , 1990 .

[44]  Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil,et al.  Winning Arguments: Interaction Dynamics and Persuasion Strategies in Good-faith Online Discussions , 2016, WWW.

[45]  Masooda Bashir,et al.  “What Is Your Evidence?” A Study of Controversial Topics on Social Media , 2016, ArgMining@ACL.

[46]  Thomas Seidl,et al.  Relational and Fine-Grained Argument Mining , 2020, Datenbank-Spektrum.

[47]  K. Krippendorff Reliability in Content Analysis: Some Common Misconceptions and Recommendations , 2004 .

[48]  T. Khazaei,et al.  Changing Others' Beliefs Online: Online Comments' Persuasiveness , 2019, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Social Media and Society.