Search for: All records

Online platforms offer forums with rich, real-world illustrations of moral reasoning. Among these, the r/AmITheAsshole (AITA) subreddit has become a prominent resource for computational research. In AITA, a user (author) describes an interpersonal moral scenario, and other users (commenters) provide moral judgments with reasons for who in the scenario is blameworthy. Prior work has focused on predicting moral judgments from AITA posts and comments. This study introduces the concept of moral sparks—key narrative excerpts that commenters highlight as pivotal to their judgments. Thus, sparks represent heightened moral attention, guiding readers to effective rationales. Through 24,676 posts and 175,988 comments, we demonstrate that research in social psychology on moral judgments extends to real-world scenarios. For example, negative traits (rude) amplify moral attention, whereas sympathetic traits (vulnerable) diminish it. Similarly, linguistic features, such as emotionally charged terms (e.g., anger), heighten moral attention, whereas positive or neutral terms (leisure and bio) attenuate it. Moreover, we find that incorporating moral sparks enhances pretrained language models’ performance on predicting moral judgment, achieving gains in F1 scores of up to 5.5%. These results demonstrate that moral sparks, derived directly from AITA narratives, capture key aspects of moral judgment and perform comparably to prior methods that depend on human annotation or large-scale generative modeling. 

Argumentative stance classification plays a key role in identifying authors' viewpoints on specific topics. However, generating diverse pairs of argumentative sentences across various domains is challenging. Existing benchmarks often come from a single domain or focus on a limited set of topics. Additionally, manual annotation for accurate labeling is time-consuming and labor-intensive. To address these challenges, we propose leveraging platform rules, readily available expert-curated content, and large language models to bypass the need for human annotation. Our approach produces a multidomain benchmark comprising 4,498 topical claims and 30,961 arguments from three sources, spanning 21 domains. We benchmark the dataset in fully supervised, zero-shot, and few-shot settings, shedding light on the strengths and limitations of different methodologies. 

Moral reasoning reflects how people acquire and apply moral rules in particular situations. With social interactions increasingly happening online, social media provides an unprecedented opportunity to assess in-the-wild moral reasoning. We investigate the commonsense aspects of morality empirically using data from a Reddit subcommunity (i.e., a subreddit), r/AmITheAsshole, where an author describes their behavior in a situation and seeks comments about whether that behavior was appropriate. A commenter judges and provides reasons for whether an author or others’ behaviors were wrong. We focus on the novel problem of understanding the moral reasoning implicit in user comments about the propriety of an author’s behavior. Specifically, we explore associations between the common elements of the indicated rationale and the extractable social factors. Our results suggest that a moral response depends on the author’s gender and the topic of a post. Typical situations and behaviors include expressing anger emotion and using sensible words (e.g., f-ck, hell, and damn) in work-related situations. Moreover, we find that commonly expressed reasons also depend on commenters’ interests. 

Cognitive and psychological studies on morality have proposed underlying linguistic and semantic factors. However, laboratory experiments in the philosophical literature often lack the nuances and complexity of real life. This paper examines how well the findings of these cognitive studies generalize to a corpus of over 30,000 narratives of tense social situations submitted to a popular social media forum. These narratives describe interpersonal moral situations or misgivings; other users judge from the post whether the author (protagonist) or the opposing side (antagonist) is morally culpable. Whereas previous work focuses on predicting the polarity of normative behaviors, we extend and apply natural language processing (NLP) techniques to understand the effects of descriptions of the people involved in these posts. We conduct extensive experiments to investigate the effect sizes of features to understand how they affect the assignment of blame on social media. Our findings show that aggregating psychology theories enables understanding real-life moral situations. Moreover, our results suggest that there exist biases in blame assignment on social media, such as males are more likely to receive blame no matter whether they are protagonists or antagonists.