Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 92 references

Emotionally Aware Moderation: The Potential of Emotion Monitoring in Shaping Healthier Social Media Conversations

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Showing users the emotional tone of a peer's comment before they post can reduce hate speech in their replies, according to a randomized study of 103 participants commenting on an abortion debate.

desk verdict A transparent, useful HCI experiment whose headline hate-speech result rests on an unvalidated classifier and post-hoc exclusions; worth reviewing, not worth taking at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21089 v1 pith:SRI3CTGR submitted 2025-06-24 cs.HC cs.CL

Xiaotian Su , Naim Zierau , Soomin Kim , April Yi Wang , Thiemo Wambsganss This is my paper
classification cs.HCcs.CL
keywords emotionmonitoringproactivemoderationhatespeechreductionsocialmediaemotionalawarenesspeerselfregulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's load-bearing claim is that real-time emotion feedback before posting changes what people write, with the strongest quantitative result being that showing users an analysis of a peer's comment reduces hate speech in their replies: in a three-arm experiment on an abortion discussion, the peer-monitoring group scored significantly lower on a hate-speech model than the control group (Mann-Whitney U, $p = .0257$). The paper also claims that both peer and self emotion dashboards raise users' awareness of their emotional states, a claim supported mainly by participants' open-ended reports. The findings matter because they offer a proactive alternative to removal-based moderation: instead of catching harmful content after it is posted, platforms could give users emotional information before they publish. The study also documents side effects, including increased expression of negative emotions (Angry, Fear, and Sad) when discussing a sensitive issue, so the intervention's net value depends on how platforms weigh emotion expression against hate speech. A sympathetic reading is that emotional reflection is a workable lever for reducing harmful content, even if the effect sizes are modest and the mechanism is not yet fully pinned down.

What carries the argument

The central object is the emotion monitoring dashboard, a pre-publication interface that analyzes a text and displays the percentages of five emotions—Angry, Fear, Sad, Surprise, Happy—as a bar chart alongside a short recommendation. Two variants carry the intervention: peer monitoring shows the emotional analysis of the comment the user is replying to, with a nudge toward helping the peer calm down, while self monitoring shows the emotional analysis of the user's own draft, with advice to use more positive expressions. The dashboard is meant to operationalize emotional awareness as a visible, numeric object, so that reflection happens before the message is sent. The quantitative claims rest on automated text measures: text2emotion for emotion percentages, a Twitter-roBERTa-base hate speech model for the hate-speech outcome, and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) for the linguistic markers that track how participants' language changed.

What would settle it

Re-score the same comments with human raters or a context-aware hate classifier who do not know the condition; if peer-monitored and control comments receive equal hate-speech ratings, the reported reduction is an artifact of the Twitter-trained model rather than a real change in behavior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors' central claim is that emotion monitoring can be a form of proactive moderation: giving users a real-time emotional readout before they post alters their commenting behavior, and at least one form of that feedback—peer emotion monitoring—reduces hate speech. They support this with a controlled comparison in which 103 valid participants commented on an abortion-related post after being randomly assigned to no feedback, feedback on the peer's emotions, or feedback on their own emotions. The peer-monitoring group's comments contained less hate speech than the control group's, a difference reported as statistically significant ($p = .0257$), and this reduction was driven by female participants. Both monitoring conditions also produced measurable language shifts—more pronouns and auxiliary verbs, fewer articles and conjunctions—and participants reported increased emotional awareness in qualitative responses. The authors would state the discovery as: pre-publication emotion feedback makes users more aware of emotions and moves their language away from hate speech, while also allowing more negative emotion to surface.

Load-bearing premise

The central result depends on the automated hate-speech and emotion scores correctly measuring what the comments convey, even though the emotion detector ignores context and the hate model was not validated on an abortion debate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Platforms could add a pre-publish emotion feedback step that reduces hate speech before content appears, complementing removal-based moderation.
  • Designers should expect and monitor for increased expression of negative emotions, since treatment groups showed more Angry, Fear, and Sad content even as hate speech fell.
  • Interventions may need gender-specific evaluation, because the significant hate-speech reduction in the study came from female participants, with the opposite trend in males under peer monitoring.
  • Language markers such as pronoun, article, auxiliary-verb, and conjunction frequency can serve as observable traces that a user engaged with the emotion feedback.
  • Raising emotional awareness is itself a plausible mechanism of action, and the qualitative reports of increased awareness support that interpretation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper compares each treatment only to the control, not to each other; a direct peer-versus-self comparison would reveal whether information about another person or about oneself is the active ingredient, and such a test is a natural next step.
  • Because the hate-speech reduction was carried by female participants, the intervention's effect may be topic- and identity-dependent; examining other sensitive topics such as immigration or racial inequality would show whether the result generalizes.
  • The simultaneous rise in expressed negative emotion and fall in hate speech suggests that feeling more and attacking less can move together; a useful extension would measure emotional intensity and hate speech separately, as current moderation conflates them.
  • Deploying self-monitoring and peer-monitoring together could amplify or cancel the separate effects, and a factorial design is the testable extension the paper did not run.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two emotion-monitoring dashboard interventions—peer emotion monitoring (TG1) and self emotion monitoring (TG2)—to increase users' emotional awareness and reduce hate speech when commenting on social media. After two pre-studies that selected abortion as an emotionally engaging topic and tested the effect of emotion rating on rewriting, the main study randomly assigned 161 Prolific participants to a control group (CG), TG1, or TG2, with 103 retained after manipulation checks and length/time filters. The central quantitative claim is that TG1 comments contain significantly less hate speech than CG comments (Mann-Whitney U test, p = .0257, U = 722, Section 6.1.2), with a secondary claim that both interventions increase users' awareness, supported mainly by qualitative self-reports. The paper also reports increased negative emotions (Angry, Fear, Sad) in treatment groups and significant changes in LIWC categories.

Significance. If the hate-speech reduction is real, the work offers a practical, personalized proactive-moderation mechanism that complements reactive approaches, and the study design is reasonably careful: random assignment, PANAS baseline control, manipulation checks, and a separate design workshop. The qualitative analysis is thoughtful and includes the instructive B17 quote about the word 'rape' inflating the fear score, showing the authors' willingness to engage with the limitations of their instruments. However, the force of the contribution hinges on the validity of automated text measures that the paper itself acknowledges are context-blind (Section 7.3). The headline result rests on a single unadjusted p-value from a model not validated on this corpus, and the exclusion pattern and multiple testing raise robustness concerns. The significance is therefore conditional on additional validation efforts.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.3.2 and §6.1.2] The hate-speech outcome is measured by the Twitter-roBERTa-base model fine-tuned on TweetEval for hate speech against women and immigrants, yet it is applied without any domain validation to short comments in an abortion-debate scenario. Section 5.3.2 reports no manual annotation, no agreement statistics, and no calibration on this corpus. Because the headline result (TG1 vs. CG, p = .0257, U = 722) is computed on this score, the effect could be a domain-shift artifact in which the model responds to topic vocabulary (e.g., 'kill', 'murder', 'baby', 'women') rather than to target-directed animus. I request evidence of construct validity on this corpus: for example, human ratings of a random sample of comments with precision/recall, or a demonstration that the group difference is robust when using an alternative hate/toxicity measure.
  2. [§5.3.1] The final valid sample is 103 out of 161 participants, a 36% exclusion rate. Exclusions are based on manipulation-check failure (21 in CG, 22 in TG1, 15 in TG2) plus the 30-word and 5-minute thresholds. The paper does not report whether exclusion rates differ significantly across conditions, nor does it provide an intention-to-treat analysis. If the manipulation check is itself influenced by the treatment (for example, TG2 participants who disregarded the dashboard might be more likely to fail the check), the remaining sample could be selected on post-treatment behavior, biasing the comparisons. Please report the participant flow through each exclusion step, test for differential attrition, and include a sensitivity analysis with the full randomized sample.
  3. [§6.1.2] The results section reports a large number of pairwise significance tests across five emotions, gender subgroups, and LIWC categories, all with p-values uncorrected for multiple comparisons. The headline hate-speech comparison (p = .0257) is one of many tests, and the gender-specific hate-speech test (p = .00647) is clearly post hoc. Under standard correction procedures (e.g., Benjamini-Hochberg over the emotion and hate-speech tests), several findings may no longer be significant. Please report adjusted p-values or explicitly frame the subgroup analyses as exploratory.
  4. [§4.2 and §6.2] In TG2, the same text2emotion package that generates the dashboard feedback is also used to compute the outcome emotion scores, creating an instrument-overlap problem: the intervention and the outcome are measured by the same keyword-based function, so any observed change in TG2 emotion scores could be a mechanical consequence of participants editing their comments in response to the dashboard. The paper's own Section 7.3 concedes that text2emotion ignores context, and participant B17 (Section 6.2.1) provides a concrete failure case. Given this acknowledged limitation, the abstract's claim that the interventions increase awareness and reduce hate speech overstates what the emotion measures can support. I recommend either restricting the central claims to the hate-speech outcome after validation, or including a human-coded emotion measure to break the circularity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§6.1.3] There is a typo: 'we examinedd further' should be 'we examined further'.
  2. [Tables 4 and 5] The column heading 'i' is not defined in the table or the text; presumably it denotes first-person singular pronouns, but it should be labeled consistently (e.g., 'I').
  3. [Table 3] Table 3 mixes percentage units for text2emotion scores with LIWC word proportions without a clear visual separation; consider using separate panels or explicit column labels to avoid confusion.
  4. [§5.3.1] The manipulation check description would benefit from stating the exact response options and the pass criterion, so that the exclusion process is fully reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the intervention effects are empirical results measured by external classifiers, and the common-instrument overlaps are validity threats rather than definitional circularity.

full rationale

This paper does not contain a mathematical derivation or fitted-parameter chain, so the classical circularity failure modes do not apply. The central hate-speech result (Section 6.1.2: 'compared to the control group, TG1 has a reduced hate speech, and this is statistical significance according to the MWU test (p = .0257, U = 722)') is computed with the Twitter-roBERTa-base hate model (Section 5.3.2), which is a different instrument from the text2emotion-based feedback shown to participants. The peer-monitoring intervention displays text2emotion percentages of Eva's fixed comment, while the outcome is the hate-score of the participant's own comment; hence the significant reduction is not forced by construction. The strongest possible concern is instrument overlap in TG2, where the dashboard shows text2emotion scores of the user's own draft and the emotion outcome is also measured with text2emotion (Sections 5.2 and 5.3.2). That is a real construct-validity threat, but it is not circularity: participants were free to ignore or dispute the feedback, and the paper documents that many did (e.g., B17: 'When I took out the word rape, my fear score went down... I'm not actually afraid'; B34: 'I felt anger was more dominant in my response'). The pre-study rewriting effect (Section 4.2) likewise uses text2emotion to compare original and rewritten comments, but the rewriting prompt was a self-rating task, not the same function as the outcome measure, so no definitional identity is present. There is also no load-bearing self-citation: the authors' prior work is not cited to justify the mechanism, and no uniqueness or ansatz argument is imported from their own publications. The paper explicitly acknowledges the keyword/context limitation in Section 7.3 ('our measurement of emotions relies on detecting keywords categorized into specific emotional categories, without considering the context in which these keywords are used'), which further shows the limitation is disclosed rather than hidden. Overall, the claims are empirical, falsifiable, and not equivalent to their inputs by construction; any weaknesses are measurement-validity concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on the validity of automated text-emotion and hate-speech measures, the representativeness of an online convenience sample, and the realism of a single simulated discussion. No mathematical free parameters are fitted, but post-hoc inclusion thresholds (30 words, 5 minutes) shape the analyzed sample. The paper itself flags the keyword-based emotion detector's context blindness in Section 7.3. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Minimum message length threshold (30 words) = 30 words
    Post-hoc inclusion criterion used in pre-study 2 and main study (Sections 4.2.2 and 5.3.1). It changes the analyzed sample and was not specified before data collection.
  • Minimum survey completion time (5 minutes) = 5 minutes
    Post-hoc inclusion rule designed to filter low-effort responses; can bias the sample if attention or manipulation check failures correlate with condition (Section 5.3.1).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Statistical test assumptions (Shapiro-Wilk, MWU, t-tests) hold for the sample sizes and distributions.
    Used across Section 6 for all group comparisons; the large number of tests inflates type I error because no multiple-comparison correction is applied.
  • domain assumption The single simulated abortion discussion and Eva's comment are a valid proxy for real social media interactions.
    The main study uses one static screenshot scenario; external validity is assumed and generalizability is limited, as acknowledged in Section 7.3.
  • domain assumption Self-reported Likert emotion ratings and automated text emotion scores measure the intended constructs of emotional awareness and emotional experience.
    Used in Phase III and Section 5.3; no ground-truth validation is reported for the automated measures on this topic.
  • domain assumption The topic 'abortion' is an appropriate and generalizable context for studying hate speech.
    Selected via a 41-person pre-study on involvement; the paper acknowledges a different topic might change emotional responses (Section 4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emotionally Aware Moderation: The Potential of Emotion Monitoring in Shaping Healthier Social Media Conversations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRI3CTGR

@misc{pith2026250721089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emotionally Aware Moderation: The Potential of Emotion Monitoring in Shaping Healthier Social Media Conversations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRI3CTGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21089}
}
read the original abstract

Social media platforms increasingly employ proactive moderation techniques, such as detecting and curbing toxic and uncivil comments, to prevent the spread of harmful content. Despite these efforts, such approaches are often criticized for creating a climate of censorship and failing to address the underlying causes of uncivil behavior. Our work makes both theoretical and practical contributions by proposing and evaluating two types of emotion monitoring dashboards to users' emotional awareness and mitigate hate speech. In a study involving 211 participants, we evaluate the effects of the two mechanisms on user commenting behavior and emotional experiences. The results reveal that these interventions effectively increase users' awareness of their emotional states and reduce hate speech. However, our findings also indicate potential unintended effects, including increased expression of negative emotions (Angry, Fear, and Sad) when discussing sensitive issues. These insights provide a basis for further research on integrating proactive emotion regulation tools into social media platforms to foster healthier digital interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21089 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our work (Emotion Monitoring) builds on existing text-based moderation practices on social media along the proactive-reactive spectrum. Our emotion monitoring dashboard aims to enhance users’ emotional awareness and help them construct more neutral messages. • We introduce a mechanism designed to enhance users’ emotional awareness and reduce toxic speech in social media conversations. • We develop a pair of user int… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the mean value of emotion scores between original comments and rewritten texts detected by the text2emotion package. 4.2.1 Procedure. We recruited 67 participants (M (age) = 28.3, SD (age) = 11.5; 52.4% male, 40.2% female, 7.3% other) from Prolific. Adhering to the result from the topic involvement experiment, we narrowed our focus to abortion as the sole topic of discussion. Fol￾lowing their posts, pa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of experimental setup in the main study: participants of the control group (CG) did not [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hate speech comparison for all three groups (CG, TG1, and TG2), using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of measured emotions using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of perceived peer emotions between CG and TG1. Participants were asked to rate to what [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of perceived self emotions between CG and TG1. Participants were asked to rate to what [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of measured emotions using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of perceived peer emotions between CG and TG2. Participants were asked to rate to what [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of perceived self emotions between CG and TG2. Participants were asked to rate to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the number of messages in four emotion classes (Angry, Fear, Sad, Happy) between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Interface of Treatment Group 2 where users receive emotion self-monitoring. Participants are pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lim, and Mohan Kankanhalli

    Ashraf Abdul, Jo Vermeulen, Danding Wang, Brian Y. Lim, and Mohan Kankanhalli. 2018. Trends and Trajectories for Explainable, Accountable and Intelligible Systems: An HCI Research Agenda. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–18. https://doi.org...

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Altshuler, Helen L

    Anna L. Altshuler, Helen L. Gerns Storey, and Sarah W. Prager. 2015. Exploring abortion attitudes of US adolescents and young adults using social media.Contraception 91, 3 (2015), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2014.11.009 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. 22 Su et al

    work page doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2014.11.009 2015

  3. [3]

    Nazanin Andalibi and Justin Buss. 2020. The Human in Emotion Recognition on Social Media: Attitudes, Outcomes, Risks. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376680

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Tita Alissa Bach, Amna Khan, Harry Hallock, Gabriela Beltrão, and Sonia Sousa. 2022. A systematic literature review of user trust in AI-enabled systems: An HCI perspective. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction (2022), 1–16

    2022

  5. [5]

    Francesco Barbieri, Jose Camacho-Collados, Luis Espinosa Anke, and Leonardo Neves. 2020. TweetEval: Unified Benchmark and Comparative Evaluation for Tweet Classification. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 , Trevor Cohn, Yulan He, and Yang Liu (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 1644–1650. https...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.148 2020

  6. [6]

    Jiang Bian, Yandong Liu, Ding Zhou, Eugene Agichtein, and Hongyuan Zha. 2009. Learning to recognize reliable users and content in social media with coupled mutual reinforcement. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web (Madrid, Spain) (WWW ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 51–60. https://doi.org/10....

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health 11, 4 (2019), 589–597

    2019

  8. [8]

    Tommaso Caselli, Valerio Basile, Jelena Mitrović, and Michael Granitzer. 2021. HateBERT: Retraining BERT for Abusive Language Detection in English. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms (WOAH 2021) , Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Douwe Kiela, Mathias Lambert, Bertie Vidgen, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, and Zeerak Waseem (Eds.). Association f...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2021.woah-1.3 2021

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Chaitrali Gandhi, Matthew Wortley Mustelier, and Eric Gilbert. 2019. Crossmod: A Cross- Community Learning-Based System to Assist Reddit Moderators. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 174 (nov 2019), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359276

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Chang, Charlotte Schluger, and Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

    Jonathan P. Chang, Charlotte Schluger, and Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil. 2022. Thread With Caution: Proactively Helping Users Assess and Deescalate Tension in Their Online Discussions. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW2, Article 545 (nov 2022), 37 pages. https://doi...

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Frederick Choi, Tanvi Bajpai, Sowmya Pratipati, and Eshwar Chandrasekharan. 2023. ConvEx: A Visual Conversation Exploration System for Discord Moderators. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW2, Article 262 (oct 2023), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610053

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Michael Chromik and Andreas Butz. 2021. Human-XAI Interaction: A Review and Design Principles for Explanation User Interfaces. In Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2021: 18th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Bari, Italy, August 30 – September 3, 2021, Proceedings, Part...

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Munmun De Choudhury, Shagun Jhaver, Benjamin Sugar, and Ingmar Weber. 2016. Social media participation in an activist movement for racial equality. InProceedings of the international aaai conference on web and social media , Vol. 10. 92–101

    2016

  6. [14]

    Gloria del Valle-Cano, Lara Quijano-Sánchez, Federico Liberatore, and Jesús Gómez. 2023. SocialHaterBERT: A dichotomous approach for automatically detecting hate speech on Twitter through textual analysis and user profiles. Expert Systems with Applications 216 (2023), 119446. ...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Nicholas Diakopoulos and Mor Naaman. 2011. Towards quality discourse in online news comments. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Hangzhou, China) (CSCW ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 133–142. https:/...

    2011

  8. [16]

    Holtzman

    To’Meisha Edwards and Nicholas S. Holtzman. 2017. A meta-analysis of correlations between depression and first person singular pronoun use. Journal of Research in Personality 68 (2017), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.005

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Mohammed-Amr Abd El-Migid, Damon Cai, Thomas Niven, Jeffrey Vo, Kashumi Madampe, John Grundy, and Rashina Hoda. 2022. Emotimonitor: A Trello power-up to capture and monitor emotions of Agile teams. Journal of Systems and Software 186 (2022), 111206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.j...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Mai ElSherief, Vivek Kulkarni, Dana Nguyen, William Yang Wang, and Elizabeth Belding. 2018. Hate Lingo: A Target-Based Linguistic Analysis of Hate Speech in Social Media. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 12, 1 (Jun. 2018). https://doi.or...

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Mohamed Ez-zaouia and Elise Lavoué. 2017. EMODA: A Tutor Oriented Multimodal and Contextual Emotional Dashboard. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) (LAK ’17). Association for Computing Mac...

    2017

  12. [20]

    Mohamed Ez-zaouia, Aurélien Tabard, and Elise Lavoué. 2020. Emodash: A dashboard supporting retrospective awareness of emotions in online learning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 139 (2020), 102411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102411 , Vol. 1, No. 1, ...

    2020

  13. [21]

    Jose Maria Garcia-Garcia, Victor M. R. Penichet, and Maria D. Lozano. 2017. Emotion detection: a technology review. In Proceedings of the XVIII International Conference on Human Computer Interaction (Cancun, Mexico) (Interacción ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New Y...

    2017

  14. [22]

    Tiemens, Venos G

    Richard Gater, Michele Tansella, Ailsa Korten, Bea G. Tiemens, Venos G. Mavreas, and Michael O. Olatawura

  15. [23]

    Elena Geangu, Oana Benga, Daniel Stahl, and Tricia Striano. 2011. Individual differences in infants’ emotional resonance to a peer in distress: Self–other awareness and emotion regulation. Social Development 20, 3 (2011), 450–470

    2011

  16. [24]

    James J Gross. 1998. The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of general psychology 2, 3 (1998), 271–299

    1998

  17. [25]

    Haimson, Daniel Delmonaco, Peipei Nie, and Andrea Wegner

    Oliver L. Haimson, Daniel Delmonaco, Peipei Nie, and Andrea Wegner. 2021. Disproportionate Removals and Differing Content Moderation Experiences for Conservative, Transgender, and Black Social Media Users: Marginalization and Moderation Gray Areas. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Inter...

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Sébastien Henschel, Jean-Louis Nandrino, and Karyn Doba. 2020. Emotion regulation and empathic abilities in young adults: The role of attachment styles. Personality and Individual Differences 156 (2020), 109763

    2020

  19. [27]

    Sameer Hinduja and Justin W. Patchin. 2010. Bullying, Cyberbullying, and Suicide. Archives of Suicide Research 14, 3 (2010), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2010.494133 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2010.494133 PMID: 20658375

    2010

  20. [28]

    (We) Can Talk It Out

    Krithika Jagannath, Katie Salen, and Petr Slovàk. 2020. "(We) Can Talk It Out... ": Designing for Promoting Conflict- Resolution Skills in Youth on a Moderated Minecraft Server. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW1, Article 49 (may 2020), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392855

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Did You Suspect the Post Would be Removed?

    Shagun Jhaver, Darren Scott Appling, Eric Gilbert, and Amy Bruckman. 2019. "Did You Suspect the Post Would be Removed?": Understanding User Reactions to Content Removals on Reddit. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 192 (nov 2019), 33 pages. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    Przemysław Kazienko, Julita Bielaniewicz, Marcin Gruza, Kamil Kanclerz, Konrad Karanowski, Piotr Miłkowski, and Jan Kocoń. 2023. Human-centered neural reasoning for subjective content processing: Hate speech, emotions, and humor. Information Fusion 94 (2023), 43–65. https://do...

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Renato Kempter, Valentina Sintsova, Claudiu Musat, and Pearl Pu. 2014. EmotionWatch: Visualizing fine-grained emotions in event-related tweets. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , Vol. 8. 236–245

    2014

  24. [32]

    Sara Kiesler, Robert Kraut, Paul Resnick, and Aniket Kittur. 2012. Regulating behavior in online communities. Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design 1 (2012), 4–2

    2012

  25. [33]

    Jooyeon Kim, Behzad Tabibian, Alice Oh, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez. 2018. Leveraging the Crowd to Detect and Reduce the Spread of Fake News and Misinformation. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (Marina...

    2018

  26. [34]

    Help Me Help the AI

    Sunnie S. Y. Kim, Elizabeth Anne Watkins, Olga Russakovsky, Ruth Fong, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2023. "Help Me Help the AI": Understanding How Explainability Can Support Human-AI Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Syrjämäki, Anna Rantasila, Poika Isokoski, Mirja Ilves, and Veikko Surakka

    Joel Kiskola, Thomas Olsson, Heli Väätäjä, Aleksi H. Syrjämäki, Anna Rantasila, Poika Isokoski, Mirja Ilves, and Veikko Surakka. 2021. Applying Critical Voice in Design of User Interfaces for Supporting Self-Reflection and Emotion Regulation in Online News Commenting. In Proce...

    2021

  28. [36]

    Kizilcec

    René F. Kizilcec. 2016. How Much Information? Effects of Transparency on Trust in an Algorithmic Interface. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,...

    2016

  29. [37]

    Konrath, Edward H

    Sara H. Konrath, Edward H. O’Brien, and Courtney Hsing. 2011. Changes in Dispositional Empathy in American College Students Over Time: A Meta-Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review 15, 2 (2011), 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310377395 arXiv:https://doi.or...

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    Yubo Kou. 2021. Punishment and Its Discontents: An Analysis of Permanent Ban in an Online Game Community. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2, Article 334 (oct 2021), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476075 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. 24 Su et al

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    de Carvalho, Thomas Olsson, and Joel Kiskola

    Mariana L. de Carvalho, Thomas Olsson, and Joel Kiskola. 2021. Exploration of user interface mechanisms with affect labeling to enhance online discussion. In Proceedings of the 24th International Academic Mindtrek Conference (Tampere/Virtual, Finland) (Academic Mindtrek ’21) ....

    2021

  32. [40]

    Vera Liao and Wai-Tat Fu

    Q. Vera Liao and Wai-Tat Fu. 2013. Beyond the Filter Bubble: Interactive Effects of Perceived Threat and Topic Involvement on Selective Exposure to Information. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France) (CHI ’13). Association...

    2013

  33. [41]

    Rensis Likert. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology (1932)

    1932

  34. [42]

    Wei-Cheng Lin and Dimitra Emmanouilidou. 2022. Toxic Speech and Speech Emotions: Investigations of Audio-based Modeling and Intercorrelations. In 2022 30th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO) . 115–119. https: //doi.org/10.23919/EUSIPCO55093.2022.9909856

    2022

  35. [43]

    Baoxi Liu, Peng Zhang, Yubo Shu, Zhengqing Guan, Tun Lu, Hansu Gu, and Ning Gu. 2022. Building a Personalized Model for Social Media Textual Content Censorship. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW2, Article 499 (nov 2022), 31 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555657

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Mary-Kate Lizotte. 2015. The Abortion Attitudes Paradox: Model Specification and Gender Differences. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 36, 1 (2015), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2015.985151 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2015.985151

    2015

  37. [45]

    Patricia L Lockwood, Ana Seara-Cardoso, and Essi Viding. 2014. Emotion regulation moderates the association between empathy and prosocial behavior. PloS one 9, 5 (2014), e96555

    2014

  38. [46]

    Minna Lyons, Nazli Deniz Aksayli, and Gayle Brewer. 2018. Mental distress and language use: Linguistic analysis of discussion forum posts. Computers in Human Behavior 87 (2018), 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.035

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Renkai Ma, Yue You, Xinning Gui, and Yubo Kou. 2023. How Do Users Experience Moderation?: A Systematic Literature Review. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW2, Article 278 (oct 2023), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610069

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Aicha Maalej and Ilhem Kallel. 2020. Does Keystroke Dynamics tell us about Emotions? A Systematic Literature Review and Dataset Construction. In 2020 16th International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE) . 60–67. https: //doi.org/10.1109/IE49459.2020.9155004

    2020

  41. [49]

    Binny Mathew, Anurag Illendula, Punyajoy Saha, Soumya Sarkar, Pawan Goyal, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2020. Hate begets Hate: A Temporal Study of Hate Speech. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW2, Article 92 (Oct. 2020), 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415163

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and Inter-Rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 72 (nov 2019), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359174

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    Miljana Mladenović, Vera Ošmjanski, and Staša Vujičić Stanković. 2021. Cyber-Aggression, Cyberbullying, and Cyber-Grooming: A Survey and Research Challenges. ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 1, Article 1 (jan 2021), 42 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3424246

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    Katarzyna Molek-Kozakowska and Michał Wanke. 2019. Reproductive rights or duties? The rhetoric of division in social media debates on abortion law in Poland. Social Movement Studies 18, 5 (2019), 566–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14742837.2019.1629279 arXiv:https://doi.org/10....

    2019

  45. [53]

    Dario Monzani, Laura Vergani, Silvia Francesca Maria Pizzoli, Giulia Marton, and Gabriella Pravettoni. 2021. Emotional tone, analytical thinking, and somatosensory processes of a sample of italian tweets during the first phases of the COVID-19 pandemic: Observational study. Jo...

    2021

  46. [54]

    Danny Osborne, Yanshu Huang, Nickola C Overall, Robbie M Sutton, Aino Petterson, Karen M Douglas, Paul G Davies, and Chris G Sibley. 2022. Abortion attitudes: An overview of demographic and ideological differences. Political Psychology 43 (2022), 29–76

    2022

  47. [55]

    Zhenhui Peng, Taewook Kim, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2019. GremoBot: Exploring Emotion Regulation in Group Chat. In Companion Publication of the 2019 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Austin, TX, USA) (CSCW ’19 Companion) . Association for Computin...

    2019

  48. [56]

    James W Pennebaker, Martha E Francis, and Roger J Booth. 2001. Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 71, 2001 (2001), 2001

    2001

  49. [57]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 21, 1, Article 140 (jan 2020), 67 pages

    2020

  50. [58]

    Julian Risch and Ralf Krestel. 2020. Toxic comment detection in online discussions. Deep learning-based approaches for sentiment analysis (2020), 85–109. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. Emotionally Aware Moderation 25

    2020

  51. [59]

    Kathleen Van Royen, Karolien Poels, Heidi Vandebosch, and Bieke Zaman. 2022. Think twice to be nice? A user experience study on a reflective interface to reduce cyber harassment on social networking sites. International journal of bullying prevention 4, 1 (2022), 23–34

    2022

  52. [60]

    Belèn Saldías and Rosalind W

    F. Belèn Saldías and Rosalind W. Picard. 2019. Tweet Moodifier: Towards giving emotional awareness to Twitter users. In 2019 8th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII) . IEEE, 1–7. https: //doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2019.8925533

    2019

  53. [61]

    Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Karen Levy

    Charlotte Schluger, Jonathan P. Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Karen Levy. 2022. Proactive Moderation of Online Discussions: Existing Practices and the Potential for Algorithmic Support. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW2, Article 370 (nov 2022), 27 pages....

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    Security.org. 2024. Cyberbullying Facts & Statistics. https://www.security.org/resources/cyberbullying-facts-statistics/. Accessed: 2024-10-30

    2024

  55. [63]

    Joseph Seering, Tianmi Fang, Luca Damasco, Mianhong ’Cherie’ Chen, Likang Sun, and Geoff Kaufman. 2019. Designing User Interface Elements to Improve the Quality and Civility of Discourse in Online Commenting Behaviors. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors...

    2019

  56. [64]

    Joseph Seering, Robert Kraut, and Laura Dabbish. 2017. Shaping Pro and Anti-Social Behavior on Twitch Through Moderation and Example-Setting. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Portland, Oregon, USA) (CSCW ’17...

    2017

  57. [65]

    Joseph Seering, Tony Wang, Jina Yoon, and Geoff Kaufman. 2019. Moderator engagement and community development in the age of algorithms. New Media & Society 21, 7 (2019), 1417–1443

    2019

  58. [66]

    Alexandra Segerberg and W Lance Bennett. 2011. Social media and the organization of collective action: Using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. The Communication Review 14, 3 (2011), 197–215

    2011

  59. [67]

    Samuel Sanford Shapiro and Martin B Wilk. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52, 3/4 (1965), 591–611

    1965

  60. [68]

    Shalin, and Ugur Kursuncu

    Amit Sheth, Valerie L. Shalin, and Ugur Kursuncu. 2022. Defining and detecting toxicity on social media: context and knowledge are key. Neurocomputing 490 (2022), 312–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2021.11.095

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    Paul J Silvia. 2002. Self-awareness and emotional intensity. Cognition & Emotion 16, 2 (2002), 195–216

    2002

  62. [70]

    Petr Slovak, Alissa Antle, Nikki Theofanopoulou, Claudia Daudén Roquet, James Gross, and Katherine Isbister. 2023. Designing for Emotion Regulation Interventions: An Agenda for HCI Theory and Research. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 30, 1, Article 13 (March 2023), 51 pages....

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    Wally Smith, Greg Wadley, Sarah Webber, Benjamin Tag, Vassilis Kostakos, Peter Koval, and James J. Gross. 2022. Digital Emotion Regulation in Everyday Life. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Associ...

    2022

  64. [72]

    Wiktor Soral, Katarzyna Malinowska, and Michał Bilewicz. 2022. The role of empathy in reducing hate speech proliferation. Two contact-based interventions in online and off-line settings. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology (2022)

    2022

  65. [73]

    Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler. 1986. Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management science 32, 11 (1986), 1492–1512

    1986

  66. [74]

    Stewart and Eric J

    Daniel M. Stewart and Eric J. Fritsch. 2011. School and Law Enforcement Efforts to Combat Cyberbullying. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth 55, 2 (2011), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2011. 539440 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/104...

    2011

  67. [75]

    Bazarova

    Samuel Hardman Taylor, Dominic DiFranzo, Yoon Hyung Choi, Shruti Sannon, and Natalya N. Bazarova. 2019. Accountability and Empathy by Design: Encouraging Bystander Intervention to Cyberbullying on Social Media. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 118 (nov 2019), ...

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    Daniela Teodorescu, Tiffany Cheng, Alona Fyshe, and Saif M Mohammad. 2023. Language and Mental Health: Measures of Emotion Dynamics from Text as Linguistic Biosocial Markers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17369 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Megan K Torkildson, Kate Starbird, and Cecilia Aragon. 2014. Analysis and visualization of sentiment and emotion on crisis tweets. In Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering: 11th International Conference, CDVE 2014, Seattle, W A, USA, September 14-17, 2014. Proceed...

    2014

  70. [78]

    Esther Van Leeuwen, Daan Van Knippenberg, and Naomi Ellemers. 2003. Continuing and changing group identities: The effects of merging on social identification and ingroup bias. Personality and social psychology bulletin 29, 6 (2003), 679–690

    2003

  71. [79]

    JOSEPH B. WALTHER. 1992. Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction: A Relational Per- spective. Communication Research 19, 1 (1992), 52–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publi...

    1992 doi

  72. [80]

    Joseph B. Walther. 1993. Impression development in computer-mediated interaction.Western Journal of Communication 57, 4 (1993), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319309374463 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319309374463

    1993 doi

  73. [81]

    Qiaosi Wang, Michael Madaio, Shaun Kane, Shivani Kapania, Michael Terry, and Lauren Wilcox. 2023. Designing Responsible AI: Adaptations of UX Practice to Meet Responsible AI Challenges. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23) . ...

    2023

  74. [82]

    Abd El-Latif

    Mudasir Ahmad Wani, Mohammad ELAffendi, Kashish Ara Shakil, Ibrahem Mohammed Abuhaimed, Anand Nayyar, Amir Hussain, and Ahmed A. Abd El-Latif. 2023. Toxic Fake News Detection and Classification for Combating COVID-19 Misinformation. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Sy...

    2023

  75. [83]

    David Watson, Lee Anna Clark, and Auke Tellegen. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology 54, 6 (1988), 1063

    1988

  76. [84]

    Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2019. Volunteer Moderators in Twitch Micro Communities: How They Get Involved, the Roles They Play, and the Emotional Labor They Experience. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). A...

    2019

  77. [85]

    Wright, Omar Shaikh, Haekyu Park, Will Epperson, Muhammed Ahmed, Stephane Pinel, Duen Horng (Polo) Chau, and Diyi Yang

    Austin P. Wright, Omar Shaikh, Haekyu Park, Will Epperson, Muhammed Ahmed, Stephane Pinel, Duen Horng (Polo) Chau, and Diyi Yang. 2021. RECAST: Enabling User Recourse and Interpretability of Toxicity Detection Models with Interactive Visualization. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Inter...

    2021 doi

  78. [86]

    Dana Yagil and Hana Medler-Liraz. 2014. Feel Free, Be Yourself: Authentic Leadership, Emotional Expression, and Employee Authenticity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 21, 1 (2014), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1548051813483833 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/15...

    2014 doi

  79. [87]

    Zihan Yan, Yufei Wu, Yang Zhang, and Xiang ’Anthony’ Chen. 2022. EmoGlass: An End-to-End AI-Enabled Wearable Platform for Enhancing Self-Awareness of Emotional Health. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’...

    2022

  80. [88]

    Amy X Zhang and Scott Counts. 2016. Gender and ideology in the spread of anti-abortion policy. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 3378–3389

    2016

  81. [89]

    Jian Zhao, Liang Gou, Fei Wang, and Michelle Zhou. 2014. PEARL: An interactive visual analytic tool for understanding personal emotion style derived from social media. In 2014 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (V AST). 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1109/...

    2014

  82. [90]

    John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’07). Association for Computing ...

    2007

  83. [91]

    Emotion Self-Monitoring

    Johannes Zimmermann, Timo Brockmeyer, Matthias Hunn, Henning Schauenburg, and Markus Wolf. 2017. First-person pronoun use in spoken language as a predictor of future depressive symptoms: Preliminary evidence from a clinical sample of depressed patients. Clinical psychology & p...

    2017

  84. [1998]

    Archives of General Psychiatry 55, 5 (05 1998), 405–413

    Sex Differences in the Prevalence and Detection of Depressive and Anxiety Disorders in General Health Care Settings: Report From the World Health Organization Collaborative Study on Psychological Problems in General Health Care. Archives of General Psychiatry 55, 5 (05 1998), ...

    1998 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.