Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

Laerdon Kim, Vivian Nguyen, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

Forecasting conversational derailment is the task of predicting, as the conversation unfolds, whether it will eventually derail into personal attacks. Since forecasting models operate in an online fashion, they must decide whether to "trigger" an alert after each utterance--for example, to notify participants or a moderator that the conversation is at risk of derailing. Existing approaches make this decision solely based on the estimated likelihood of derailment given the preceding utterances, implicitly assuming that the conversation's future trajectory is fixed. As a result, they ignore the possibility of future recovery and incur an unnecessarily high rate of false positives. In this work we propose a method for decoupling the decision to trigger from derailment likelihood estimation. Our approach is inspired by the first human baseline on this task, which shows that humans achieve dramatically lower false positive rates by selectively deferring their decision to trigger when they anticipate that tension is likely to subside. We operationalize this insight with a deferral mechanism that uses forward-looking simulations to assess whether a tense moment admits plausible paths to recovery. Incorporating this mechanism into a state-of-the-art forecasting model substantially reduces false positives without sacrificing forecasting accuracy. More broadly, this work highlights the value of treating decision-making as a first-class component of forecasting systems.

Charlotte Schluger, Jonathan P. Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al.

To address the widespread problem of uncivil behavior, many online discussion platforms employ human moderators to take action against objectionable content, such as removing it or placing sanctions on its authors. This reactive paradigm of taking action against already-posted antisocial content is currently the most common form of moderation, and has accordingly underpinned many recent efforts at introducing automation into the moderation process. Comparatively less work has been done to understand other moderation paradigms -- such as proactively discouraging the emergence of antisocial behavior rather than reacting to it -- and the role algorithmic support can play in these paradigms. In this work, we investigate such a proactive framework for moderation in a case study of a collaborative setting: Wikipedia Talk Pages. We employ a mixed methods approach, combining qualitative and design components for a holistic analysis. Through interviews with moderators, we find that despite a lack of technical and social support, moderators already engage in a number of proactive moderation behaviors, such as preemptively intervening in conversations to keep them on track. Further, we explore how automation could assist with this existing proactive moderation workflow by building a prototype tool, presenting it to moderators, and examining how the assistance it provides might fit into their workflow. The resulting feedback uncovers both strengths and drawbacks of the prototype tool and suggests concrete steps towards further developing such assisting technology so it can most effectively support moderators in their existing proactive moderation workflow.

Jonathan P. Chang, Charlotte Schluger, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

Incivility remains a major challenge for online discussion platforms, to such an extent that even conversations between well-intentioned users can often derail into uncivil behavior. Traditionally, platforms have relied on moderators to -- with or without algorithmic assistance -- take corrective actions such as removing comments or banning users. In this work we propose a complementary paradigm that directly empowers users by proactively enhancing their awareness about existing tension in the conversation they are engaging in and actively guides them as they are drafting their replies to avoid further escalation. As a proof of concept for this paradigm, we design an algorithmic tool that provides such proactive information directly to users, and conduct a user study in a popular discussion platform. Through a mixed methods approach combining surveys with a randomized controlled experiment, we uncover qualitative and quantitative insights regarding how the participants utilize and react to this information. Most participants report finding this proactive paradigm valuable, noting that it helps them to identify tension that they may have otherwise missed and prompts them to further reflect on their own replies and to revise them. These effects are corroborated by a comparison of how the participants draft their reply when our tool warns them that their conversation is at risk of derailing into uncivil behavior versus in a control condition where the tool is disabled. These preliminary findings highlight the potential of this user-centered paradigm and point to concrete directions for future implementations.

Jonathan P. Chang, Caleb Chiam, Liye Fu et al.

This paper describes the design and functionality of ConvoKit, an open-source toolkit for analyzing conversations and the social interactions embedded within. ConvoKit provides an unified framework for representing and manipulating conversational data, as well as a large and diverse collection of conversational datasets. By providing an intuitive interface for exploring and interacting with conversational data, this toolkit lowers the technical barriers for the broad adoption of computational methods for conversational analysis.

Yilun Hua, Nicholas Chernogor, Yuzhe Gu et al.

Throughout a conversation, the way participants interact with each other is in constant flux: their tones may change, they may resort to different strategies to convey their points, or they might alter their interaction patterns. An understanding of these dynamics can complement that of the actual facts and opinions discussed, offering a more holistic view of the trajectory of the conversation: how it arrived at its current state and where it is likely heading. In this work, we introduce the task of summarizing the dynamics of conversations, by constructing a dataset of human-written summaries, and exploring several automated baselines. We evaluate whether such summaries can capture the trajectory of conversations via an established downstream task: forecasting whether an ongoing conversation will eventually derail into toxic behavior. We show that they help both humans and automated systems with this forecasting task. Humans make predictions three times faster, and with greater confidence, when reading the summaries than when reading the transcripts. Furthermore, automated forecasting systems are more accurate when constructing, and then predicting based on, summaries of conversation dynamics, compared to directly predicting on the transcripts.

Son Quoc Tran, Tushaar Gangavarapu, Nicholas Chernogor et al. · amazon-science

We often rely on our intuition to anticipate the direction of a conversation. Endowing automated systems with similar foresight can enable them to assist human-human interactions. Recent work on developing models with this predictive capacity has focused on the Conversations Gone Awry (CGA) task: forecasting whether an ongoing conversation will derail. In this work, we revisit this task and introduce the first uniform evaluation framework, creating a benchmark that enables direct and reliable comparisons between different architectures. This allows us to present an up-to-date overview of the current progress in CGA models, in light of recent advancements in language modeling. Our framework also introduces a novel metric that captures a model's ability to revise its forecast as the conversation progresses.

Sang Min Jung, Kaixiang Zhang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

The quality of a conversation goes beyond the individual quality of each reply, and instead emerges from how these combine into interactional dynamics that give the conversation its distinctive overall "shape". However, there is no robust automated method for comparing conversations in terms of their overall dynamics. Such methods could enhance the analysis of conversational data and help evaluate conversational agents more holistically. In this work, we introduce a similarity measure for comparing conversations with respect to their dynamics. We design a validation procedure for testing the robustness of the metric in capturing differences in conversation dynamics and for assessing its sensitivity to the topic of the conversations. To illustrate the measure's utility, we use it to analyze conversational dynamics in a large online community, bringing new insights into the role of situational power in conversations.

Kaixiang Zhang, Justine Zhang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

An intrinsic aspect of every conversation is the way talk-time is shared between multiple speakers. Conversations can be balanced, with each speaker claiming a similar amount of talk-time, or imbalanced when one talks disproportionately. Such overall distributions are the consequence of continuous negotiations between the speakers throughout the conversation: who should be talking at every point in time, and for how long? In this work we introduce a computational framework for quantifying both the conversation-level distribution of talk-time between speakers, as well as the lower-level dynamics that lead to it. We derive a typology of talk-time sharing dynamics structured by several intuitive axes of variation. By applying this framework to a large dataset of video-chats between strangers, we confirm that, perhaps unsurprisingly, different conversation-level distributions of talk-time are perceived differently by speakers, with balanced conversations being preferred over imbalanced ones, especially by those who end up talking less. Then we reveal that -- even when they lead to the same level of overall balance -- different types of talk-time sharing dynamics are perceived differently by the participants, highlighting the relevance of our newly introduced typology. Finally, we discuss how our framework offers new tools to designers of computer-mediated communication platforms, for both human-human and human-AI communication.

Vivian Nguyen, Lillian Lee, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

During a conversation, there can come certain moments where its outcome hangs in the balance. In these pivotal moments, how one responds can put the conversation on substantially different trajectories leading to significantly different outcomes. Systems that can detect when such moments arise could assist conversationalists in domains with highly consequential outcomes, such as mental health crisis counseling. In this work, we introduce an unsupervised computational method for detecting such pivotal moments as they happen, in an online fashion. Our approach relies on the intuition that a moment is pivotal if our expectation of the outcome varies widely depending on what might be said next. By applying our method to crisis counseling conversations, we first validate it by showing that it aligns with human perception -- counselors take significantly longer to respond during moments detected by our method -- and with the eventual conversational trajectory -- which is more likely to change course at these times. We then use our framework to explore the relation of the counselor's response during pivotal moments with the eventual outcome of the session.

Liye Fu, Susan R. Fussell, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

Aided by technology, people are increasingly able to communicate across geographical, cultural, and language barriers. This ability also results in new challenges, as interlocutors need to adapt their communication approaches to increasingly diverse circumstances. In this work, we take the first steps towards automatically assisting people in adjusting their language to a specific communication circumstance. As a case study, we focus on facilitating the accurate transmission of pragmatic intentions and introduce a methodology for suggesting paraphrases that achieve the intended level of politeness under a given communication circumstance. We demonstrate the feasibility of this approach by evaluating our method in two realistic communication scenarios and show that it can reduce the potential for misalignment between the speaker's intentions and the listener's perceptions in both cases.

Justine Zhang, Sendhil Mullainathan, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

Understanding what leads to effective conversations can aid the design of better computer-mediated communication platforms. In particular, prior observational work has sought to identify behaviors of individuals that correlate to their conversational efficiency. However, translating such correlations to causal interpretations is a necessary step in using them in a prescriptive fashion to guide better designs and policies. In this work, we formally describe the problem of drawing causal links between conversational behaviors and outcomes. We focus on the task of determining a particular type of policy for a text-based crisis counseling platform: how best to allocate counselors based on their behavioral tendencies exhibited in their past conversations. We apply arguments derived from causal inference to underline key challenges that arise in conversational settings where randomized trials are hard to implement. Finally, we show how to circumvent these inference challenges in our particular domain, and illustrate the potential benefits of an allocation policy informed by the resulting prescriptive information.

Justine Zhang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

Throughout a conversation, participants make choices that can orient the flow of the interaction. Such choices are particularly salient in the consequential domain of crisis counseling, where a difficulty for counselors is balancing between two key objectives: advancing the conversation towards a resolution, and empathetically addressing the crisis situation. In this work, we develop an unsupervised methodology to quantify how counselors manage this balance. Our main intuition is that if an utterance can only receive a narrow range of appropriate replies, then its likely aim is to advance the conversation forwards, towards a target within that range. Likewise, an utterance that can only appropriately follow a narrow range of possible utterances is likely aimed backwards at addressing a specific situation within that range. By applying this intuition, we can map each utterance to a continuous orientation axis that captures the degree to which it is intended to direct the flow of the conversation forwards or backwards. This unsupervised method allows us to characterize counselor behaviors in a large dataset of crisis counseling conversations, where we show that known counseling strategies intuitively align with this axis. We also illustrate how our measure can be indicative of a conversation's progress, as well as its effectiveness.

Jonathan P. Chang, Justin Cheng, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

Discourse involves two perspectives: a person's intention in making an utterance and others' perception of that utterance. The misalignment between these perspectives can lead to undesirable outcomes, such as misunderstandings, low productivity and even overt strife. In this work, we present a computational framework for exploring and comparing both perspectives in online public discussions. We combine logged data about public comments on Facebook with a survey of over 16,000 people about their intentions in writing these comments or about their perceptions of comments that others had written. Unlike previous studies of online discussions that have largely relied on third-party labels to quantify properties such as sentiment and subjectivity, our approach also directly captures what the speakers actually intended when writing their comments. In particular, our analysis focuses on judgments of whether a comment is stating a fact or an opinion, since these concepts were shown to be often confused. We show that intentions and perceptions diverge in consequential ways. People are more likely to perceive opinions than to intend them, and linguistic cues that signal how an utterance is intended can differ from those that signal how it will be perceived. Further, this misalignment between intentions and perceptions can be linked to the future health of a conversation: when a comment whose author intended to share a fact is misperceived as sharing an opinion, the subsequent conversation is more likely to derail into uncivil behavior than when the comment is perceived as intended. Altogether, these findings may inform the design of discussion platforms that better promote positive interactions.

Kumar Bhargav Srinivasan, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Lillian Lee et al.

Moderators of online communities often employ comment deletion as a tool. We ask here whether, beyond the positive effects of shielding a community from undesirable content, does comment removal actually cause the behavior of the comment's author to improve? We examine this question in a particularly well-moderated community, the ChangeMyView subreddit. The standard analytic approach of interrupted time-series analysis unfortunately cannot answer this question of causality because it fails to distinguish the effect of having made a non-compliant comment from the effect of being subjected to moderator removal of that comment. We therefore leverage a "delayed feedback" approach based on the observation that some users may remain active between the time when they posted the non-compliant comment and the time when that comment is deleted. Applying this approach to such users, we reveal the causal role of comment deletion in reducing immediate noncompliance rates, although we do not find evidence of it having a causal role in inducing other behavior improvements. Our work thus empirically demonstrates both the promise and some potential limits of content removal as a positive moderation strategy, and points to future directions for identifying causal effects from observational data.

Jonathan P. Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

Online discussions often derail into toxic exchanges between participants. Recent efforts mostly focused on detecting antisocial behavior after the fact, by analyzing single comments in isolation. To provide more timely notice to human moderators, a system needs to preemptively detect that a conversation is heading towards derailment before it actually turns toxic. This means modeling derailment as an emerging property of a conversation rather than as an isolated utterance-level event. Forecasting emerging conversational properties, however, poses several inherent modeling challenges. First, since conversations are dynamic, a forecasting model needs to capture the flow of the discussion, rather than properties of individual comments. Second, real conversations have an unknown horizon: they can end or derail at any time; thus a practical forecasting model needs to assess the risk in an online fashion, as the conversation develops. In this work we introduce a conversational forecasting model that learns an unsupervised representation of conversational dynamics and exploits it to predict future derailment as the conversation develops. By applying this model to two new diverse datasets of online conversations with labels for antisocial events, we show that it outperforms state-of-the-art systems at forecasting derailment.

Justine Zhang, Robert Filbin, Christine Morrison et al.

Mental health counseling is an enterprise with profound societal importance where conversations play a primary role. In order to acquire the conversational skills needed to face a challenging range of situations, mental health counselors must rely on training and on continued experience with actual clients. However, in the absence of large scale longitudinal studies, the nature and significance of this developmental process remain unclear. For example, prior literature suggests that experience might not translate into consequential changes in counselor behavior. This has led some to even argue that counseling is a profession without expertise. In this work, we develop a computational framework to quantify the extent to which individuals change their linguistic behavior with experience and to study the nature of this evolution. We use our framework to conduct a large longitudinal study of mental health counseling conversations, tracking over 3,400 counselors across their tenure. We reveal that overall, counselors do indeed change their conversational behavior to become more diverse across interactions, developing an individual voice that distinguishes them from other counselors. Furthermore, a finer-grained investigation shows that the rate and nature of this diversification vary across functionally different conversational components.

Liye Fu, Jonathan P. Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

People often share personal narratives in order to seek advice from others. To properly infer the narrator's intention, one needs to apply a certain degree of common sense and social intuition. To test the capabilities of NLP systems to recover such intuition, we introduce the new task of inferring what is the advice-seeking goal behind a personal narrative. We formulate this as a cloze test, where the goal is to identify which of two advice-seeking questions was removed from a given narrative. The main challenge in constructing this task is finding pairs of semantically plausible advice-seeking questions for given narratives. To address this challenge, we devise a method that exploits commonalities in experiences people share online to automatically extract pairs of questions that are appropriate candidates for the cloze task. This results in a dataset of over 20,000 personal narratives, each matched with a pair of related advice-seeking questions: one actually intended by the narrator, and the other one not. The dataset covers a very broad array of human experiences, from dating, to career options, to stolen iPads. We use human annotation to determine the degree to which the task relies on common sense and social intuition in addition to a semantic understanding of the narrative. By introducing several baselines for this new task we demonstrate its feasibility and identify avenues for better modeling the intention of the narrator.

Jonathan P. Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

Community norm violations can impair constructive communication and collaboration online. As a defense mechanism, community moderators often address such transgressions by temporarily blocking the perpetrator. Such actions, however, come with the cost of potentially alienating community members. Given this tradeoff, it is essential to understand to what extent, and in which situations, this common moderation practice is effective in reinforcing community rules. In this work, we introduce a computational framework for studying the future behavior of blocked users on Wikipedia. After their block expires, they can take several distinct paths: they can reform and adhere to the rules, but they can also recidivate, or straight-out abandon the community. We reveal that these trajectories are tied to factors rooted both in the characteristics of the blocked individual and in whether they perceived the block to be fair and justified. Based on these insights, we formulate a series of prediction tasks aiming to determine which of these paths a user is likely to take after being blocked for their first offense, and demonstrate the feasibility of these new tasks. Overall, this work builds towards a more nuanced approach to moderation by highlighting the tradeoffs that are in play.

Yiqing Hua, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Dario Taraborelli et al.

We present a corpus that encompasses the complete history of conversations between contributors to Wikipedia, one of the largest online collaborative communities. By recording the intermediate states of conversations---including not only comments and replies, but also their modifications, deletions and restorations---this data offers an unprecedented view of online conversation. This level of detail supports new research questions pertaining to the process (and challenges) of large-scale online collaboration. We illustrate the corpus' potential with two case studies that highlight new perspectives on earlier work. First, we explore how a person's conversational behavior depends on how they relate to the discussion's venue. Second, we show that community moderation of toxic behavior happens at a higher rate than previously estimated. Finally the reconstruction framework is designed to be language agnostic, and we show that it can extract high quality conversational data in both Chinese and English.

Justine Zhang, Jonathan P. Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al.

One of the main challenges online social systems face is the prevalence of antisocial behavior, such as harassment and personal attacks. In this work, we introduce the task of predicting from the very start of a conversation whether it will get out of hand. As opposed to detecting undesirable behavior after the fact, this task aims to enable early, actionable prediction at a time when the conversation might still be salvaged. To this end, we develop a framework for capturing pragmatic devices---such as politeness strategies and rhetorical prompts---used to start a conversation, and analyze their relation to its future trajectory. Applying this framework in a controlled setting, we demonstrate the feasibility of detecting early warning signs of antisocial behavior in online discussions.

Justine Zhang, Arthur Spirling, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

Questions play a prominent role in social interactions, performing rhetorical functions that go beyond that of simple informational exchange. The surface form of a question can signal the intention and background of the person asking it, as well as the nature of their relation with the interlocutor. While the informational nature of questions has been extensively examined in the context of question-answering applications, their rhetorical aspects have been largely understudied. In this work we introduce an unsupervised methodology for extracting surface motifs that recur in questions, and for grouping them according to their latent rhetorical role. By applying this framework to the setting of question sessions in the UK parliament, we show that the resulting typology encodes key aspects of the political discourse---such as the bifurcation in questioning behavior between government and opposition parties---and reveals new insights into the effects of a legislator's tenure and political career ambitions.

Justine Zhang, William L. Hamilton, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al.

A community's identity defines and shapes its internal dynamics. Our current understanding of this interplay is mostly limited to glimpses gathered from isolated studies of individual communities. In this work we provide a systematic exploration of the nature of this relation across a wide variety of online communities. To this end we introduce a quantitative, language-based typology reflecting two key aspects of a community's identity: how distinctive, and how temporally dynamic it is. By mapping almost 300 Reddit communities into the landscape induced by this typology, we reveal regularities in how patterns of user engagement vary with the characteristics of a community. Our results suggest that the way new and existing users engage with a community depends strongly and systematically on the nature of the collective identity it fosters, in ways that are highly consequential to community maintainers. For example, communities with distinctive and highly dynamic identities are more likely to retain their users. However, such niche communities also exhibit much larger acculturation gaps between existing users and newcomers, which potentially hinder the integration of the latter. More generally, our methodology reveals differences in how various social phenomena manifest across communities, and shows that structuring the multi-community landscape can lead to a better understanding of the systematic nature of this diversity.

Subhabrata Mukherjee, Gerhard Weikum, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

Online health communities are a valuable source of information for patients and physicians. However, such user-generated resources are often plagued by inaccuracies and misinformation. In this work we propose a method for automatically establishing the credibility of user-generated medical statements and the trustworthiness of their authors by exploiting linguistic cues and distant supervision from expert sources. To this end we introduce a probabilistic graphical model that jointly learns user trustworthiness, statement credibility, and language objectivity. We apply this methodology to the task of extracting rare or unknown side-effects of medical drugs --- this being one of the problems where large scale non-expert data has the potential to complement expert medical knowledge. We show that our method can reliably extract side-effects and filter out false statements, while identifying trustworthy users that are likely to contribute valuable medical information.

William L. Hamilton, Justine Zhang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al.

Loyalty is an essential component of multi-community engagement. When users have the choice to engage with a variety of different communities, they often become loyal to just one, focusing on that community at the expense of others. However, it is unclear how loyalty is manifested in user behavior, or whether loyalty is encouraged by certain community characteristics. In this paper we operationalize loyalty as a user-community relation: users loyal to a community consistently prefer it over all others; loyal communities retain their loyal users over time. By exploring this relation using a large dataset of discussion communities from Reddit, we reveal that loyalty is manifested in remarkably consistent behaviors across a wide spectrum of communities. Loyal users employ language that signals collective identity and engage with more esoteric, less popular content, indicating they may play a curational role in surfacing new material. Loyal communities have denser user-user interaction networks and lower rates of triadic closure, suggesting that community-level loyalty is associated with more cohesive interactions and less fragmentation into subgroups. We exploit these general patterns to predict future rates of loyalty. Our results show that a user's propensity to become loyal is apparent from their first interactions with a community, suggesting that some users are intrinsically loyal from the very beginning.

Liye Fu, Lillian Lee, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

Group discussions are a way for individuals to exchange ideas and arguments in order to reach better decisions than they could on their own. One of the premises of productive discussions is that better solutions will prevail, and that the idea selection process is mediated by the (relative) competence of the individuals involved. However, since people may not know their actual competence on a new task, their behavior is influenced by their self-estimated competence --- that is, their confidence --- which can be misaligned with their actual competence. Our goal in this work is to understand the effects of confidence-competence misalignment on the dynamics and outcomes of discussions. To this end, we design a large-scale natural setting, in the form of an online team-based geography game, that allows us to disentangle confidence from competence and thus separate their effects. We find that in task-oriented discussions, the more-confident individuals have a larger impact on the group's decisions even when these individuals are at the same level of competence as their teammates. Furthermore, this unjustified role of confidence in the decision-making process often leads teams to under-perform. We explore this phenomenon by investigating the effects of confidence on conversational dynamics.

Justin Cheng, Michael Bernstein, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al.

In online communities, antisocial behavior such as trolling disrupts constructive discussion. While prior work suggests that trolling behavior is confined to a vocal and antisocial minority, we demonstrate that ordinary people can engage in such behavior as well. We propose two primary trigger mechanisms: the individual's mood, and the surrounding context of a discussion (e.g., exposure to prior trolling behavior). Through an experiment simulating an online discussion, we find that both negative mood and seeing troll posts by others significantly increases the probability of a user trolling, and together double this probability. To support and extend these results, we study how these same mechanisms play out in the wild via a data-driven, longitudinal analysis of a large online news discussion community. This analysis reveals temporal mood effects, and explores long range patterns of repeated exposure to trolling. A predictive model of trolling behavior shows that mood and discussion context together can explain trolling behavior better than an individual's history of trolling. These results combine to suggest that ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, behave like trolls.

Liye Fu, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Lillian Lee

Gender bias is an increasingly important issue in sports journalism. In this work, we propose a language-model-based approach to quantify differences in questions posed to female vs. male athletes, and apply it to tennis post-match interviews. We find that journalists ask male players questions that are generally more focused on the game when compared with the questions they ask their female counterparts. We also provide a fine-grained analysis of the extent to which the salience of this bias depends on various factors, such as question type, game outcome or player rank.

Vlad Niculae, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

Group discussions are essential for organizing every aspect of modern life, from faculty meetings to senate debates, from grant review panels to papal conclaves. While costly in terms of time and organization effort, group discussions are commonly seen as a way of reaching better decisions compared to solutions that do not require coordination between the individuals (e.g. voting)---through discussion, the sum becomes greater than the parts. However, this assumption is not irrefutable: anecdotal evidence of wasteful discussions abounds, and in our own experiments we find that over 30% of discussions are unproductive. We propose a framework for analyzing conversational dynamics in order to determine whether a given task-oriented discussion is worth having or not. We exploit conversational patterns reflecting the flow of ideas and the balance between the participants, as well as their linguistic choices. We apply this framework to conversations naturally occurring in an online collaborative world exploration game developed and deployed to support this research. Using this setting, we show that linguistic cues and conversational patterns extracted from the first 20 seconds of a team discussion are predictive of whether it will be a wasteful or a productive one.

Justine Zhang, Ravi Kumar, Sujith Ravi et al.

Public debates are a common platform for presenting and juxtaposing diverging views on important issues. In this work we propose a methodology for tracking how ideas flow between participants throughout a debate. We use this approach in a case study of Oxford-style debates---a competitive format where the winner is determined by audience votes---and show how the outcome of a debate depends on aspects of conversational flow. In particular, we find that winners tend to make better use of a debate's interactive component than losers, by actively pursuing their opponents' points rather than promoting their own ideas over the course of the conversation.

Chenhao Tan, Vlad Niculae, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al.

Changing someone's opinion is arguably one of the most important challenges of social interaction. The underlying process proves difficult to study: it is hard to know how someone's opinions are formed and whether and how someone's views shift. Fortunately, ChangeMyView, an active community on Reddit, provides a platform where users present their own opinions and reasoning, invite others to contest them, and acknowledge when the ensuing discussions change their original views. In this work, we study these interactions to understand the mechanisms behind persuasion. We find that persuasive arguments are characterized by interesting patterns of interaction dynamics, such as participant entry-order and degree of back-and-forth exchange. Furthermore, by comparing similar counterarguments to the same opinion, we show that language factors play an essential role. In particular, the interplay between the language of the opinion holder and that of the counterargument provides highly predictive cues of persuasiveness. Finally, since even in this favorable setting people may not be persuaded, we investigate the problem of determining whether someone's opinion is susceptible to being changed at all. For this more difficult task, we show that stylistic choices in how the opinion is expressed carry predictive power.

Vlad Niculae, Srijan Kumar, Jordan Boyd-Graber et al.

Interpersonal relations are fickle, with close friendships often dissolving into enmity. In this work, we explore linguistic cues that presage such transitions by studying dyadic interactions in an online strategy game where players form alliances and break those alliances through betrayal. We characterize friendships that are unlikely to last and examine temporal patterns that foretell betrayal. We reveal that subtle signs of imminent betrayal are encoded in the conversational patterns of the dyad, even if the victim is not aware of the relationship's fate. In particular, we find that lasting friendships exhibit a form of balance that manifests itself through language. In contrast, sudden changes in the balance of certain conversational attributes---such as positive sentiment, politeness, or focus on future planning---signal impending betrayal.

Vlad Niculae, Caroline Suen, Justine Zhang et al.

Given the extremely large pool of events and stories available, media outlets need to focus on a subset of issues and aspects to convey to their audience. Outlets are often accused of exhibiting a systematic bias in this selection process, with different outlets portraying different versions of reality. However, in the absence of objective measures and empirical evidence, the direction and extent of systematicity remains widely disputed. In this paper we propose a framework based on quoting patterns for quantifying and characterizing the degree to which media outlets exhibit systematic bias. We apply this framework to a massive dataset of news articles spanning the six years of Obama's presidency and all of his speeches, and reveal that a systematic pattern does indeed emerge from the outlet's quoting behavior. Moreover, we show that this pattern can be successfully exploited in an unsupervised prediction setting, to determine which new quotes an outlet will select to broadcast. By encoding bias patterns in a low-rank space we provide an analysis of the structure of political media coverage. This reveals a latent media bias space that aligns surprisingly well with political ideology and outlet type. A linguistic analysis exposes striking differences across these latent dimensions, showing how the different types of media outlets portray different realities even when reporting on the same events. For example, outlets mapped to the mainstream conservative side of the latent space focus on quotes that portray a presidential persona disproportionately characterized by negativity.

Justin Cheng, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Jure Leskovec

User contributions in the form of posts, comments, and votes are essential to the success of online communities. However, allowing user participation also invites undesirable behavior such as trolling. In this paper, we characterize antisocial behavior in three large online discussion communities by analyzing users who were banned from these communities. We find that such users tend to concentrate their efforts in a small number of threads, are more likely to post irrelevantly, and are more successful at garnering responses from other users. Studying the evolution of these users from the moment they join a community up to when they get banned, we find that not only do they write worse than other users over time, but they also become increasingly less tolerated by the community. Further, we discover that antisocial behavior is exacerbated when community feedback is overly harsh. Our analysis also reveals distinct groups of users with different levels of antisocial behavior that can change over time. We use these insights to identify antisocial users early on, a task of high practical importance to community maintainers.

Tim Althoff, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Dan Jurafsky

Requests are at the core of many social media systems such as question & answer sites and online philanthropy communities. While the success of such requests is critical to the success of the community, the factors that lead community members to satisfy a request are largely unknown. Success of a request depends on factors like who is asking, how they are asking, when are they asking, and most critically what is being requested, ranging from small favors to substantial monetary donations. We present a case study of altruistic requests in an online community where all requests ask for the very same contribution and do not offer anything tangible in return, allowing us to disentangle what is requested from textual and social factors. Drawing from social psychology literature, we extract high-level social features from text that operationalize social relations between recipient and donor and demonstrate that these extracted relations are predictive of success. More specifically, we find that clearly communicating need through the narrative is essential and that that linguistic indications of gratitude, evidentiality, and generalized reciprocity, as well as high status of the asker further increase the likelihood of success. Building on this understanding, we develop a model that can predict the success of unseen requests, significantly improving over several baselines. We link these findings to research in psychology on helping behavior, providing a basis for further analysis of success in social media systems.

Justin Cheng, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Jure Leskovec

Social media systems rely on user feedback and rating mechanisms for personalization, ranking, and content filtering. However, when users evaluate content contributed by fellow users (e.g., by liking a post or voting on a comment), these evaluations create complex social feedback effects. This paper investigates how ratings on a piece of content affect its author's future behavior. By studying four large comment-based news communities, we find that negative feedback leads to significant behavioral changes that are detrimental to the community. Not only do authors of negatively-evaluated content contribute more, but also their future posts are of lower quality, and are perceived by the community as such. Moreover, these authors are more likely to subsequently evaluate their fellow users negatively, percolating these effects through the community. In contrast, positive feedback does not carry similar effects, and neither encourages rewarded authors to write more, nor improves the quality of their posts. Interestingly, the authors that receive no feedback are most likely to leave a community. Furthermore, a structural analysis of the voter network reveals that evaluations polarize the community the most when positive and negative votes are equally split.

Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Moritz Sudhof, Dan Jurafsky et al.

We propose a computational framework for identifying linguistic aspects of politeness. Our starting point is a new corpus of requests annotated for politeness, which we use to evaluate aspects of politeness theory and to uncover new interactions between politeness markers and context. These findings guide our construction of a classifier with domain-independent lexical and syntactic features operationalizing key components of politeness theory, such as indirection, deference, impersonalization and modality. Our classifier achieves close to human performance and is effective across domains. We use our framework to study the relationship between politeness and social power, showing that polite Wikipedia editors are more likely to achieve high status through elections, but, once elevated, they become less polite. We see a similar negative correlation between politeness and power on Stack Exchange, where users at the top of the reputation scale are less polite than those at the bottom. Finally, we apply our classifier to a preliminary analysis of politeness variation by gender and community.

Eunsol Choi, Chenhao Tan, Lillian Lee et al.

Understanding the ways in which participants in public discussions frame their arguments is important in understanding how public opinion is formed. In this paper, we adopt the position that it is time for more computationally-oriented research on problems involving framing. In the interests of furthering that goal, we propose the following specific, interesting and, we believe, relatively accessible question: In the controversy regarding the use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture, do pro- and anti-GMO articles differ in whether they choose to adopt a "scientific" tone? Prior work on the rhetoric and sociology of science suggests that hedging may distinguish popular-science text from text written by professional scientists for their colleagues. We propose a detailed approach to studying whether hedge detection can be used to understanding scientific framing in the GMO debates, and provide corpora to facilitate this study. Some of our preliminary analyses suggest that hedges occur less frequently in scientific discourse than in popular text, a finding that contradicts prior assertions in the literature. We hope that our initial work and data will encourage others to pursue this promising line of inquiry.

Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Justin Cheng, Jon Kleinberg et al.

Understanding the ways in which information achieves widespread public awareness is a research question of significant interest. We consider whether, and how, the way in which the information is phrased --- the choice of words and sentence structure --- can affect this process. To this end, we develop an analysis framework and build a corpus of movie quotes, annotated with memorability information, in which we are able to control for both the speaker and the setting of the quotes. We find that there are significant differences between memorable and non-memorable quotes in several key dimensions, even after controlling for situational and contextual factors. One is lexical distinctiveness: in aggregate, memorable quotes use less common word choices, but at the same time are built upon a scaffolding of common syntactic patterns. Another is that memorable quotes tend to be more general in ways that make them easy to apply in new contexts --- that is, more portable. We also show how the concept of "memorable language" can be extended across domains.