Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 15 references

Rethinking stance detection: A theoretically-informed research agenda for user-level inference using language models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stance should be treated as a user-level construct, and large language models now make user-level inference feasible by recovering psychological attributes from text.

desk verdict Useful agenda paper with a genuine public/private equivocation at its core; worth refereeing after a conceptual fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02074 v1 pith:DRA3JR5V submitted 2025-02-04 cs.CL

Prasanta Bhattacharya , Hong Zhang , Yiming Cao , Wei Gao , Brandon Siyuan Loh , Joseph J.P. Simons , Liang Ze Wong This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords stancedetectionuser-levelinferencelargelanguagemodelsmoralfoundationshumanvaluessocialmediaresearchagendapsychologicalattributes
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

This paper argues that stance detection has been aimed at the wrong unit: stance is fundamentally a property of the person, not of a single message. The authors review interdisciplinary definitions of stance and conclude that message-level stances are closer to public evaluations, while user-level stances are closer to private evaluations, so the two need different modelling strategies. They propose that recent language models can act as flexible inferers of user-level psychological attributes, such as moral foundations, values, and personality, and that these attributes can be injected into stance models via prompting or fine-tuning. The paper's contribution is a four-point research agenda: clarify the psychological foundations of stance, build thicker user-level datasets, expand to emerging and unseen targets, and design less biased LLM-based stance models. A sympathetic reader would take the central claim to be that user-level, theory-informed stance inference is now technically feasible and should become the field's default frame.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stance-as-user-level-construct framework, synthesized in the paper's Figure 1, which traces stance from an epistemic or affective origin through verbal, interactional, psychological, and culture-protective manifestations to personal, interpersonal, and societal expression. The load-bearing mechanism is LLM-based attribute inference: using large language models to infer psychological attributes such as moral foundations, values, and personality from social media text, then injecting those attributes into stance models via prompting or fine-tuning. The framework does the theoretical work of justifying which attributes matter, while the LLM mechanism does the practical work of making those attributes available at scale.

What would settle it

Collect a panel of social media users who complete validated self-report measures of moral foundations and values, then apply the proposed LLM attribute-inference pipeline to their public posts; if the inferred attributes correlate weakly with the self-reports, or if adding them to a strong text-based stance model yields no gain on user-level stance across targets, the technical enabler of the agenda fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that stance is fundamentally a user-level construct and that the field's dominant message-level framing is an artifact of data availability rather than conceptual choice. Drawing on 28 definitions of stance across sociolinguistics, philosophy, psychology, and communication, the authors distinguish public stances, the positions people perform in messages, from private evaluations, which are closer to attitudes and are the proper target of user-level inference. They then argue that large language models are especially suited to closing the gap, because LLMs can infer deep user attributes such as moral foundations and values from text and can incorporate those attributes into stance prediction through prompting or fine-tuning. The paper reviews 23 LLM-based stance studies as evidence that this pipeline is emerging, and it concludes with a four-point agenda for making user-level stance detection theoretically informed, inclusive, and practically applicable.

Load-bearing premise

The agenda depends on the premise that language models can infer psychological attributes like moral foundations and values from social media text accurately enough, and without systematic bias, that adding those attributes improves user-level stance prediction; the authors cite promising studies but provide no direct validation and acknowledge LLM bias and occasional underperformance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • User-level stance detection should become a standard task alongside message-level detection, with its own datasets and evaluation.
  • Models that incorporate psychological attributes such as moral foundations and human values should outperform models that use text alone, for targets where those attributes are predictive.
  • Zero-shot and cross-target stance prediction should improve because user attributes inferred once can transfer to unseen targets.
  • The design of stance datasets should shift toward thicker user-level resources that include validated psychological measures and longitudinal observations.
  • LLM-based stance systems should be evaluated for political and demographic bias, not only accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the public/private distinction is right, message-level stance labels are noisy proxies for user-level stance, and aggregating multiple messages per user should systematically improve user-level prediction.
  • The agenda implies a validation cycle the paper does not fully supply: LLM-inferred moral foundations and values should be checked against self-report psychometric instruments on the same users before being used as training features.
  • A natural extension is to use the same attribute-inference mechanism to model stance change over time, since values and moral foundations shift slowly while stances on events shift quickly.
  • The framework also suggests that interactional and network features, such as who a user aligns with, should be treated as evidence of stance rather than merely auxiliary features.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This position paper argues that stance detection research has two significant omissions: a lack of theoretical conceptualization of stance and an almost exclusive focus on message-level rather than user-level inference. The authors review interdisciplinary definitions of stance, propose a framework distinguishing the origin, manifestation, and conveyance of stance, and survey 23 recent LLM-based stance detection studies. They contend that stance is fundamentally a user-level construct and that LLMs can enable user-level inference by inferring psychological attributes such as moral foundations, values, and personality from social media text. The paper concludes with a four-point research agenda covering psychological foundations, data resources, emerging tasks, and LLM design.

Significance. If the central claims were fully established, this paper would offer a valuable corrective to the field: it is well-cited, draws on diverse theoretical traditions, and provides a concrete agenda for moving stance detection toward a more user-centric and psychologically informed paradigm. The framework in Figure 1 and the synthesis in Table A1 are useful organizing devices, and the review of LLM studies in Table A2 gives a current snapshot of the area. The paper also explicitly identifies falsifiable directions, such as testing whether incorporating moral foundations improves user-level stance prediction. However, the paper's conceptual foundation is undermined by an equivocation between stance as public expression and user-level stance as private evaluation, and the empirical premise that LLMs can validly infer psychological attributes is asserted with limited supporting evidence. These issues are load-bearing but addressable in revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2] The paper defines stance as "the external expression of one's viewpoint or position" (Section 1) and later states that "stances are generally public statements of an evaluation, whereas an attitude is an individual's private evaluation" (Section 2). It then contends that message-level stances are "more akin to public evaluations" and user-level stances "more like private evaluations." This is internally inconsistent: under the paper's own definition, a private evaluation is an attitude, not a stance. The definitions in Table A1 overwhelmingly characterize stance as public expression (e.g., Biber & Finegan 1988; Du Bois 2007), so the mapping of user-level stances to private evaluations is unsupported by the paper's own evidence. Because the entire agenda—refocusing stance detection on user-level inference—depends on this conceptual distinction, the equivocation is load-bearing. The authors should either redefine user-level stance as an aggregate or disposition inferred from repeated public stance acts, preserving the public nature of stance, or explicitly revise the target construct and discuss its relationship to attitude.
  2. [Sections 4 and 5.1] The agenda's technical enabler is the premise that LLMs can infer psychological attributes (moral foundations, values, personality) from social media text with sufficient validity to improve downstream stance prediction. The paper cites promising studies (e.g., Nguyen et al. 2024; Kang et al. 2023; Zhang et al. 2024c) but also acknowledges "occasional underperformance" and LLM biases (Section 4.1). No effect sizes, systematic comparison against established psychometric instruments, or validation of the inferred attributes is provided. For a research agenda, this premise could be framed as an explicit hypothesis with a validation plan; as written, the paper asserts the premise more strongly than the evidence warrants. The authors should temper the claim and specify concrete validation approaches, such as known-groups comparisons or benchmark tests against self-report measures.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Table A2] The review of 23 LLM stance detection studies is used to conclude that "LLMs can significantly enhance stance detection tasks," but the selection is neither systematic nor justified. There is no search protocol, inclusion criteria, or quality assessment, and many of the reviewed works are preprints. Some reviewed studies report negative or mixed results (e.g., Niu et al. 2024; Zhang et al. 2022, 2023b). Without a transparent selection and evidence synthesis, the conclusion may be overly optimistic. The authors should either soften the claim to "early evidence suggests" or provide a more systematic review with explicit criteria and balanced reporting of failures.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table A2] There are several formatting and typographical errors: "Prepint (arXiv)" should be "Preprint," the duplicate Wagner et al. (2024) entries are confusing, and the column alignment is inconsistent across rows.
  2. [Section 1] The phrase "Analyzing these expression on social media" should be "Analyzing these expressions," and a stray period appears in "Zhang et al (2024c). used BERTweet" in Section 3.2.3.
  3. [Section 2] The sentence "In this regard, stance shares conceptual overlaps with other 'internal' constructs, such as beliefs and values" conflicts with the earlier definition of stance as external expression; the relationship between internal constructs and public stance acts should be clarified.
  4. [General] The title as presented in the manuscript body ("Enhancing user stance detection on social media using language models: A theoretically-informed research agenda") differs from the arXiv title ("Rethinking stance detection: A theoretically-informed research agenda"); the intended title should be used consistently.
  5. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is referenced but does not appear in the manuscript text; ensure the figure with a clear caption is included in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the user-level stance agenda is a literature-grounded position; self-citations are supporting, not load-bearing.

full rationale

Walked the claimed argument chain. The paper's central claims are (1) stance is conceptually richer at user level and (2) LLM-inferred psychological attributes can improve user-level stance modelling. Neither claim is derived from a fitted parameter, an equation, or a uniqueness theorem. Claim (1) is supported by an interdisciplinary review of external definitions (Biber and Finegan 1988; Du Bois 2007; Kockelman 2004; Eagly and Chaiken 1993). Claim (2) is supported by external studies (Nguyen et al. 2024; Kang et al. 2023; Cruickshank and Ng 2024; Darwish et al. 2020) and by the authors' own earlier empirical work (Zhang et al. 2024c; Loh et al. 2024; Simons et al. 2024). Those self-citations are used as evidence of previously reported, externally falsifiable results, not as an authority that forces the present agenda; the agenda stands or falls on the empirical literature. The paper also flags its own vulnerability: LLM inference of attributes can be biased and can underperform (Sec. 4.1), and inferred attributes should be 'subsequently validated through user studies' (Sec. 5.2). The Skeptic's private/public evaluation objection identifies a real conceptual inconsistency between the definition of stance as 'external expression' (Sec. 1) and the later claim that user-level stances are 'more like private evaluations' (Sec. 2), but that is a consistency/correctness concern, not a circular derivation: the paper's conclusion is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. Its argument rests on psychological and NLP domain assumptions, most importantly the validity of LLM-inferred user attributes, and on the representativeness of its own literature review.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Stance is an individual-level psychological construct, and message-level stance is a public expression of that construct.
    Adopted in Sec 1 and Sec 2 from the attitudes literature (Eagly & Chaiken 1993) and Du Bois (2007). This is a definitional premise, not an empirical finding of the paper.
  • domain assumption LLMs can infer deep psychological attributes (values, moral foundations, personality) from social media text with sufficient validity to improve stance detection.
    Introduced in Sec 4 and Sec 5.1. The paper cites Nguyen et al. (2024), Kang et al. (2023), and Simons et al. (2024), but does not validate the inference pipeline itself.
  • ad hoc to paper The 23 reviewed LLM stance detection studies are representative of the current literature.
    Table A2 is the evidence base for Sec 4's conclusions, but the paper does not specify a systematic search or inclusion protocol, so representativeness is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper The Figure 1 framework (origin, manifestation, conveyance) is a complete and useful decomposition of stance.
    This taxonomy is proposed by the authors as a synthesis of the reviewed definitions; it is not empirically validated or compared with alternative frameworks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rethinking stance detection: A theoretically-informed research agenda for user-level inference using language models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DRA3JR5V

@misc{pith2026250202074,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rethinking stance detection: A theoretically-informed research agenda for user-level inference using language models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DRA3JR5V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02074}
}
read the original abstract

Stance detection has emerged as a popular task in natural language processing research, enabled largely by the abundance of target-specific social media data. While there has been considerable research on the development of stance detection models, datasets, and application, we highlight important gaps pertaining to (i) a lack of theoretical conceptualization of stance, and (ii) the treatment of stance at an individual- or user-level, as opposed to message-level. In this paper, we first review the interdisciplinary origins of stance as an individual-level construct to highlight relevant attributes (e.g., psychological features) that might be useful to incorporate in stance detection models. Further, we argue that recent pre-trained and large language models (LLMs) might offer a way to flexibly infer such user-level attributes and/or incorporate them in modelling stance. To better illustrate this, we briefly review and synthesize the emerging corpus of studies on using LLMs for inferring stance, and specifically on incorporating user attributes in such tasks. We conclude by proposing a four-point agenda for pursuing stance detection research that is theoretically informed, inclusive, and practically impactful.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02074 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A general framework for stance formation, representation, and conveyance. 3. COMPUTATIONAL MODELS OF ONLINE STANCE INFERENCE In this section, we summarise the current state of work on developing computational models of online stance detection. As discussed earlier, stance detection is the task of determining the position held by a message or its author towards a specific target, e.g., whether they are in favour, aga… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aiyappa, R., Senthilmani, S., An, J., Kwak, H., & Ahn, Y. Y. (2024). Benchmarking zero-shot stance detection with FlanT5- XXL: Insights from training data, prompting, and decoding strategies into its near-SoTA performance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00236. AlDayel, A., & Magdy, W. (2021). Stance detection on social media: State of the art and trends. Infor...

    arXiv 2024

  2. [6]

    122-132)

    (pp. 122-132).. Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. Cambridge University Press. Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. D. (2014). Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) (pp. 1532-1543). Petrocelli, J. V., Tormala, Z. L.,...

    arXiv 1996

  3. [7]

    9245-9260)

    (pp. 9245-9260). Rezapour, R., Dinh, L., & Diesner, J. (2021). Incorporating the measurement of moral foundations theory into analyzing stances on controversial topics. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (pp. 177-188). Robbins, P. & Jack, A.I. (2006). The phenomenal stance. Philosophical Studies: An International Journ...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [10]

    A Logically Consistent Chain-of-Thought Approach for Stance Detection

    (pp. 4530-4541). Wang, H., Wang, T., & Li, Y. (2020). Incorporating expert-based investment opinion signals in stock prediction: A deep learning framework. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 34, No. 01, pp. 971-978). Wei, P., & Mao, W. (2019). Modeling transferable topics for cross-target stance detection. In Proceeding...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  5. [11]

    23 Sharma, A., Gupta, A., & Bilalpur, M. (2023). Argumentative Stance Prediction: An Exploratory Study on Multimodality and Few-Shot Learning. In Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Argument Mining (pp. 167-174).. Simons, J. J., Ze, W. L., Bhattacharya, P., Loh, B. S., & Gao, W. (2024). From traces to measures: A psychometric approach to using large langu...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  6. [14]

    Media and Social Trust, Personal and Social Well- Being, Politics (dataset: ESS) User Fine-tuned LLMs Target value distributions were injected into LLMs via fine-tuning (argument generation and question answering) to predict opinions and behaviours of people with similar value distributions EMNLP Gatto et al. (2023) Stance detection Support, against, neut...

    work page 2023

  7. [15]

    IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems Zhang et al

    Post Fine-tuned LLMs Employed fine-tuned ChatGPT, LLaMa-2, and Mistral-7B for stance detection, surpassing existing benchmarks and highlighting their efficiency in zero-shot and few-shot learning scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems Zhang et al. (2024d) Stance detection Support, against, neutral Social media (datasets: SemEval-2016...

    work page 2024

  8. [28]

    By stance we mean the lexical and grammatical expression of attitudes, feelings, judgments, or commitment concerning the propositional content of a message

    Zhu, L., He, Y., & Zhou, D. (2020). Neural opinion dynamics model for the prediction of user-level stance dynamics. Information Processing & Management, 57(2), 102031. Ziems, C., Held, W., Shaikh, O., Chen, J., Zhang, Z., & Yang, D. (2024). Can large language models transform computational social science?.Computational Linguistics, 50(1), 237-291. Zubiaga...

    work page 2020

Show all 15 references
  1. [41]

    Gül, İ., Lebret, R., & Aberer, K. (2024). Stance Detection on Social Media with Fine-Tuned Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12171. Hanselowski, A., Avinesh, P. V. S., Schiller, B., Caspelherr, F., Chaudhuri, D., Meyer, C. M., & Gurevych, I. (2018). A Retrospect...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [81]

    Against Naturalised Epistemology

    Šuppa, M., Skala, D., Jašš, D., Sučík, S., Švec, A., & Hraška, P. (2024). Bryndza at ClimateActivism 2024: Stance, Target and Hate Event Detection via Retrieval-Augmented GPT-4 and LLaMA. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06549. Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychol...

    2024 arXiv

  3. [1663]

    Du, J., Xu, R., He, Y., & Gui, L. (2017). Stance classification with target-specific neural attention networks. In 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2017 (pp. 3988-3994). International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence. Du Bois, J...

    2017 arXiv

  4. [2004]

    …a person’s expression of their relationship to their interlocutors (their interpersonal stance—e.g., friendly or dominating)

    Philosophy “…a philosophical position can consist in something other than a belief in what the world is like. The alternative is a stance (attitude, commitment, approach) which can be expressed, and which may involve or presuppose some beliefs as well … What empiricists have s...

    2014

  5. [2020]

    In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Web Science Conference 2023 (pp. 23-32). Zhang, Z., Li, Y., Zhang, J., & Xu, H. (2024a). LLM-Driven Knowledge Injection Advances Zero-Shot and Cross-Target Stance Detection. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of t...

    2024 arXiv

  6. [2024]

    9961-9973)

    (pp. 9961-9973). Loh, S. B., Wong, L. Z., Bhattacharya, P., Simons, J., Gao, W., & Zhang, H. (2024). Predicting User Stances from Target- Agnostic Information using Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14395. Liu, Y., Zhang, X. F., Wegsman, D., Beauchamp, N., & Wan...

    2024 arXiv

  7. [2332]

    E., & Guyer, J

    Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & Guyer, J. J. (2019). A historical view on attitudes and persuasion. Oxford Encyclopedia of the history of psychology, 1-34. Bulla, L., Gangemi, A., & Mongiovì, M. (2024). Do Language Models Understand Morality? Towards a Robust Detection of Moral Co...

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.