Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-2c8nx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-24T09:27:34.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - A Cross-Context Examination of Online Comments’ Perceived Persuasion Power

from II - Persuasion and (New) Contexts of Use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2025

By
Lu Xiao ,
Theodoros Lappas  and
Charis Owuraku Asante-Agyei
Edited by
Sofia Rüdiger  and
Daria Dayter
Sofia Rüdiger
Affiliation:
Universität Bayreuth, Germany
Daria Dayter
Affiliation:
Tampere University, Finland
Get access

Summary

As people communicate in new and advanced forms online, they are also increasingly engaging in persuasive processes. However, there is a dearth of knowledge about the processes and mechanisms of online persuasion. Our work explores how online persuasive comments are shaped by different communication contexts and linguistic features. We explore this connection by conducting a cross-context examination of four different contexts: two online datasets (standalone argument pairs and Yelp reviews) and two online discussion datasets (Wikipedia Article for Deletion discussions and the subreddit r/ChangeMyView). Analysing the similarities and differences across the resulting four contexts, we highlight how different online communication contexts may affect different linguistic features of a persuasive comment. Such insights could raise awareness and foster critical thinking thereby enriching online communication experiences.

Keywords

online persuasionlinguistic cueonline reviewonline discussioncross-context examination
Type
Chapter
Information
Manipulation, Influence and Deception
The Changing Landscape of Persuasive Language
 , pp. 91 - 106
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bigne, E., Ruiz, C., Currás-Pérez, R., & Martí-Parreño, J. (2020). The effects of eWOM in social media on tourism services. In International conference on tourism research (pp. I–VIII). Academic Conferences International Limited.Google Scholar
Bulkeley, K., & Graves, M. (2018). Using the LIWC program to study dreams. Dreaming, 28(1), 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Q., Duan, W., & Gan, Q. (2011). Exploring determinants of voting for the ‘helpfulness’ of online user reviews: A text mining approach. Decision Support Systems, 50(2), 511–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dey, S., Duff, B., Karahalios, K., & Fu, W. T. (2017). The art and science of persuasion: Not all crowdfunding campaign videos are the same. In CSCW’17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 755–769). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gan, Q., Cao, Q., & Jones, D. R. (2012). Helpfulness of online user reviews: More is less. In AMCIS 2012 proceedings 23. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/EBusiness/23Google Scholar
Ghose, A., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2011). Estimating the helpfulness and economic impact of product reviews: Mining text and reviewer characteristics. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 23(10), 1498–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(2), 193–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Habernal, I., & Gurevych, I. (2016). Which argument is more convincing? Analyzing and predicting convincingness of Web arguments using bidirectional LSTM. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long papers) (pp. 1589–1599). ACL.Google Scholar
Hosman, L. A. (2002). Language and persuasion. In Dillard, J. P. & Pfau, M. (Eds.), The Persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 371–390). Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, A. H., Chen, K., Yen, D. C., & Tran, T. P. (2015). A study of factors that contribute to online review helpfulness. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ismagilova, E., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Slade, E. (2020). Perceived helpfulness of eWOM: Emotions, fairness and rationality. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin, J., & Liu, Y. (2010). How to interpret the helpfulness of online product reviews: Bridging the needs between customers and designers. In SMUC’10: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Search and Mining User-Generated Contents (pp. 87–94). ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J., & Zhan, L. (2011). Online persuasion: How the written word drives WOM. Journal of Advertising Research, 51(1), 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, L., Zhang, K., Zhou, Q., & Zhang, C. (2016). Toward understanding review usefulness: A case study on Yelp restaurants. iConference 2016 proceedings. https://doi.org/10.9776/16536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J., & Xiao, L. (2021). Neural-based RST parsing and analysis in persuasive discourse. In Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT 2021) (pp. 274–283). ACL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Z., & Park, S. (2015). What makes a helpful online review? Implication for travel product websites. Tourism Management, 47, 140–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mensah, H., Xiao, L., & Soundarajan, S. (2019). Characterizing susceptible users on Reddit’s ChangeMyView. In SMSociety’19: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Social Media and Society (pp. 102–107). ACM.Google Scholar
Miller, G. R. (2013). On being persuaded: Some basic distinctions. In Dillard, J. P. & Shen, L. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 70–82). Sage.Google Scholar
Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D. (2010). What makes a helpful review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, P. K. (2001). What makes a text persuasive? Comparing students’ and experts’ conceptions of persuasiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(7–8), 675–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, D. T., Dabbish, L. A., & Kiesler, S. (2015). The perverse effects of social transparency on online advice taking. In CSCW’15: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 207–217). ACM.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and practice. Sage.Google Scholar
Olagunju, T., Oyebode, O., & Orji, R. (2020). Exploring key issues affecting African mobile eCommerce applications using sentiment and thematic analysis. IEEE Access, 8, 114475–114486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parikh, A. A., Behnke, C., Nelson, D., Vorvoreanu, M., & Almanza, B. (2015). A qualitative assessment of Yelp.com users’ motivations to submit and read restaurant reviews. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 13(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peldszus, A., & Stede, M. (2013). From argument diagrams to argumentation mining in texts: A survey. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence, 7(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Boyd, R. L., & Francis, M. E. (2015). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2015. Pennebaker Conglomerates.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas-Zárate, M. D. P., López-López, E., Valencia-García, R., Aussenac-Gilles, N., Almela, Á., & Alor-Hernández, G. (2014). A study on LIWC categories for opinion mining in Spanish reviews. Journal of Information Science, 40(6), 749–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Simons, H. W. (1976). Persuasion: Understanding, practice, and analysis. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Tan, C., Niculae, V., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., & Lee, L. (2016). Winning arguments: Interaction dynamics and persuasion strategies in good-faith online discussions. In WWW’16 Companion: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (pp. 613–624). ACM.Google Scholar
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weathers, D., Swain, S. D., & Grover, V. (2015). Can online product reviews be more helpful? Examining characteristics of information content by product type. Decision Support Systems, 79, 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, M. B., & Kurby, C. A. (2017). Belief in the claim of an argument increases perceived argument soundness. Discourse Processes, 54(8), 599–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, L. (2013). The effects of a shared free form rationale space in collaborative learning activities. Journal of Systems and Software, 86(7), 1727–1737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, L. (2018). A message’s persuasive features in Wikipedia’s Article for Deletion discussions. In SMSociety’18: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Social Media and Society (pp. 345–349). ACM.Google Scholar
Xiao, L. (2021). Fighting disinformation in social media: An online persuasion perspective. In Luttrell, R., Xiao, L., & Glass, J. (Eds.), Democracy in the disinformation age: Influence and activism in American politics (pp. 201–220). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, L., & Askin, N. (2014). What influences online deliberation? A Wikipedia study. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 898–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, L., & Conroy, N. (2017). Discourse relations in rationale‐containing text‐segments. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(12), 2783–2794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, L., & Khazaei, T. (2019). Change others’ beliefs online: Online comments’ persuasiveness. In SMSociety’19: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Social Media and Society (pp. 92–101). ACM.Google Scholar
Xiao, Y., & Xiao, L. (2020). Effects of anonymity on comment persuasiveness in Wikipedia Articles for Deletion discussions. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Computational Social Science (NLP+CSS) (pp. 104–115). ACL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalch, R. F., & Elmore-Yalch, R. (1984). The effect of numbers on the route to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 522–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×