below on statistically significance differences in F1. We boldface personality feature sets in Table \[tab:belief\_change\] that are statistically significant when comparing {[mono]{}, [ fact]{}, [emot]{}}+None with the other feature sets in the group.

The effect of argument alone (without personality information) can be seen by the no-personality baseline for each argument type, where we exclude personality information ({[mono]{}, [fact]{}, [ emot]{}}+None). All these feature sets perform above the baseline of 33% (Row 1). This supports the results of our prior [anova]{} testing over all subjects for belief change, and shows that the argument itself partially predicts belief change.

However, more interestingly, Table \[tab:belief\_change\] also shows that providing the learner with information about personality consistently improves the ability of the learner to predict belief change. For all types of arguments, ie. the neutral, monologic summaries and the factual and emotional dialogs, the feature sets without any information about the personality traits of the unseen human subjects perform significantly worse than the feature sets that contain all five personality traits. [mono]{}+None compared to [ mono]{}+All (rows 2 and 8 respectively) show a slight but significant increase in F1 from 0.51 to 0.52 (using a paired t-test on 10 fold cross validation scores, 