Again, as expected, initially Entrenched people showed less change (M = 0.43) than those who began with Neutral views (M = 0.51), [anova]{} ($F_{(1,5179)}$=5.97, p = 0.015).

Argument Type and Belief Change
-------------------------------

We wanted to test whether the engaging, socially interesting, dialogic materials of [emot]{} and [fact]{} might promote more belief change than balanced curated monologic summaries. We tested the differences between argument types, finding a main effect for argument type ($F_{(2,5179)}$=31.59, p &lt;0.0001), with Tukey post-hoc tests showing [mono]{} led to more belief change than both [emot]{} and [fact]{} (both p &lt;0.0001), but no differences between [emot]{} and [fact]{} overall across all subjects (See Table \[tab:beliefchange\_means\_stddev\]). Finally there was no interaction between Initial Belief and Argument Type ($F_{(2,5179)}$=1.25, p &gt;0.05): so although neutrals show more belief change overall, this susceptibility does not vary by argument type.

Predicting Belief Change
========================

Our results so far show that our arguments changed people’s beliefs as a function of their prior beliefs and argument type. However we aim to automatically [**predict**]{} belief change, and hypothesize that knowing a person’s [**personality**]{} in combination with their [**prior beliefs**]{} will allow us to select social-media arguments that are more persuasive [**for a particular individual**]{}.

Thus, 