following communication [@Leeetal98; @Foxtree99; @SuzukiYamada04; @Driscolletal03; @FoxtreeMayer08; @Foxtree99; @LiuFoxtree11].

Other work [@Vydiswaranetal12] explores how user-interface factors (e.g., number and order of argument presentation, whether and how arguments are rated) affect how readers process arguments. Several factors increased the number of passages read, including explicitly presenting contrasting viewpoints simultaneously. This exercise caused people with strong beliefs (about the healthiness of milk) to moderate their views after 20-30 minutes of concentrated study. We do not concentrate on interface factors, instead exploring how persuasiveness relates to audience factors and argumentative style. Also our experiments are run online with hundreds of users, rather than as a controlled study in the lab.

Experimental Method
===================

Our experimental method consists of the following steps:

-   Select user-generated dialogs with persuasive argument features from an online corpus of socio-political debates, exploring the role of [**affect**]{} (Sec. \[corpus-iac\]).

-   Profile subjects for [**personality traits**]{} and [**prior beliefs**]{} about socio-political issues (Sec. \[corpus-pers\]).

-   Expose subjects to user-generated, factual vs. emotional dialogic exchanges and compare the effects on belief change to balanced, curated arguments (Sec. \[corpus-belief\]).

-   Conduct experiments to predict the degree of belief change as a function of prior belief, personality and type of argument.

The participants 