Both liberals and conservatives believe that using facts in political discussions helps to foster mutual respect, but 15 studies—across multiple methodologies and issues—show that these beliefs are mistaken. Political opponents respect moral beliefs more when they are supported by personal experiences, not facts. The respect-inducing power of personal experiences is revealed by survey studies across various political topics, a field study of conversations about guns, an analysis of YouTube comments from abortion opinion videos, and an archival analysis of 137 interview transcripts from Fox News and CNN. The personal experiences most likely to encourage respect from opponents are issue-relevant and involve harm. Mediation analyses reveal that these harm-related personal experiences increase respect by increasing perceptions of rationality: everyone can appreciate that avoiding harm is rational, even in people who hold different beliefs about guns, taxes, immigration, and the environment. Studies show that people believe in the truth of both facts and personal experiences in nonmoral disagreement; however, in moral disagreements, subjective experiences seem truer (i.e., are doubted less) than objective facts. These results provide a concrete demonstration of how to bridge moral divides while also revealing how our intuitions can lead us astray. Stretching back to the Enlightenment, philosophers and scientists have privileged objective facts over experiences in the pursuit of truth. However, furnishing perceptions of truth within moral disagreements is better accomplished by sharing subjective experiences, not by providing facts.
more »
« less
Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood:Comparing Intentions and Perceptions in Online Discussions
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.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10176520
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of WWW
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 2066 to 2077
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
more » « less
Abstract Does information about how other people feel about COVID-19 vaccination affect immunization intentions? We conducted preregistered survey experiments in Great Britain (5,456 respondents across 3 survey waves from September 2020 to February 2021), Canada (1,315 respondents in February 2021), and the state of New Hampshire in the United States (1,315 respondents in January 2021). The experiments examine the effects of providing accurate public opinion information to people about either public support for COVID-19 vaccination (an injunctive norm) or public beliefs that the issue is contentious. Across all 3 countries, exposure to this information had minimal effects on vaccination intentions even among people who previously held inaccurate beliefs about support for COVID-19 vaccination or its perceived contentiousness. These results suggest that providing information on public opinion about COVID vaccination has limited additional effect on people’s behavioral intentions when public discussion of vaccine uptake and intentions is highly salient.
-
null (Ed.)Online forums are an integral part of modern day courses, but motivating students to participate in educationally beneficial discussions can be challenging. Our proposed solution is to initialize (or “seed”) a new course forum with comments from past instances of the same course that are intended to trigger discussion that is beneficial to learning. In this work, we develop methods for selecting high-quality seeds and evaluate their impact over one course instance of a 186-student biology class. We designed a scale for measuring the “seeding suitability” score of a given thread (an opening comment and its ensuing discussion). We then constructed a supervised machine learning (ML) model for predicting the seeding suitability score of a given thread. This model was evaluated in two ways: first, by comparing its performance to the expert opinion of the course instructors on test/holdout data; and second, by embedding it in a live course, where it was actively used to facilitate seeding by the course instructors. For each reading assignment in the course, we presented a ranked list of seeding recommendations to the course instructors, who could review the list and filter out seeds with inconsistent or malformed content. We then ran a randomized controlled study, in which one group of students was shown seeds that were recommended by the ML model, and another group was shown seeds that were recommended by an alternative model that ranked seeds purely by the length of discussion that was generated in previous course instances. We found that the group of students that received posts from either seeding model generated more discussion than a control group in the course that did not get seeded posts. Furthermore, students who received seeds selected by the ML-based model showed higher levels of engagement, as well as greater learning gains, than those who received seeds ranked by length of discussion.more » « less
-
Anonymity can enable both healthy online interactions like support-seeking and toxic behaviors like hate speech. How do online service providers balance these threats and opportunities? This two-part qualitative study examines the challenges perceived by open collaboration service providers in allowing anonymous contributions to their projects. We interviewed eleven people familiar with organizational decisions related to privacy and security at five open collaboration projects and followed up with an analysis of public discussions about anonymous contribution to Wikipedia. We contrast our findings with prior work on threats perceived by project volunteers and explore misalignment between policies aiming to serve contributors and the privacy practices of contributors themselves.more » « less
-
more » « less
Background Monitoring technologies are used to collect a range of information, such as one’s location out of the home or movement within the home, and transmit that information to caregivers to support aging in place. Their surveilling nature, however, poses ethical dilemmas and can be experienced as intrusive to people living with Alzheimer disease (AD) and AD-related dementias. These challenges are compounded when older adults are not engaged in decision-making about how they are monitored. Dissemination of these technologies is outpacing our understanding of how to communicate their functions, risks, and benefits to families and older adults. To date, there are no tools to help families understand the functions of monitoring technologies or guide them in balancing their perceived need for ongoing surveillance and the older adult’s dignity and wishes.
Objective We designed, developed, and piloted a communication and education tool in the form of a web application called Let’s Talk Tech to support family decision-making about diverse technologies used in dementia home care. The knowledge base about how to design online interventions for people living with mild dementia is still in development, and dyadic interventions used in dementia care remain rare. We describe the intervention’s motivation and development process, and the feasibility of using this self-administered web application intervention in a pilot sample of people living with mild AD and their family care partners.
Methods We surveyed 29 mild AD dementia care dyads living together before and after they completed the web application intervention and interviewed each dyad about their experiences with it. We report postintervention measures of feasibility (recruitment, enrollment, and retention) and acceptability (satisfaction, quality, and usability). Descriptive statistics were calculated for survey items, and thematic analysis was used with interview transcripts to illuminate participants’ experiences and recommendations to improve the intervention.
Results The study enrolled 33 people living with AD and their care partners, and 29 (88%) dyads completed the study (all but one were spousal dyads). Participants were asked to complete 4 technology modules, and all completed them. The majority of participants rated the tool as having the right length (>90%), having the right amount of information (>84%), being very clearly worded (>74%), and presenting information in a balanced way (>90%). Most felt the tool was easy to use and helpful, and would likely recommend it to others.
Conclusions This study demonstrated that our intervention to educate and facilitate conversation and documentation of preferences is preliminarily feasible and acceptable to mild AD care dyads. Effectively involving older adults in these decisions and informing care partners of their preferences could enable families to avoid conflicts or risks associated with uninformed or disempowered use and to personalize use so both members of the dyad can experience benefits.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3366423.3380273
