Online disagreements often fail to produce understanding, instead reinforcing existing positions or escalating conflict. Prior work on predictors of successful persuasion in online discourse has largely focused on surface features such as linguistic style or conversational structure, leaving open the role of underlying principles or concerns that participants bring to an interaction. In this paper, we investigate how the expression and alignment of human values in back-and-forth online discussions relate to persuasion. Using data from Reddit's ChangeMyView subreddit, where successful persuasion is explicitly signaled through the awarding of deltas, we analyze one-on-one exchanges and characterize participants' value expression by drawing from Schwartz's Refined Theory of Basic Human Values. We find that successful persuasion is associated with two complementary processes: pre-existing compatibility between participants' value priorities even before the exchange happens, and the emergence of value alignment over the course of a conversation. At the same time, successful persuasion does not depend on commenters making large departures from their typical value expression patterns. We discuss implications of our findings for the design of online social platforms that aim to support constructive engagement across disagreement.

翻译：在线争论往往无法达成理解，反而会强化既有立场或加剧冲突。先前关于在线话语中成功说服预测因素的研究主要关注语言风格或对话结构等表层特征，尚未深入探讨参与者带入互动的潜在原则或关切所起的作用。本文研究了在线往复讨论中人类价值观的表达与一致性如何与说服力相关联。利用Reddit的ChangeMyView子论坛数据（该论坛通过授予delta徽章明确标示成功说服），我们分析了一对一交流过程，并基于施瓦茨精细化基本人类价值观理论对参与者的价值观表达进行特征化描述。研究发现，成功说服与两个互补过程相关：一是交流发生前参与者价值观优先级之间既存的相容性，二是对话过程中价值观一致性的逐步形成。同时，成功说服并不依赖于评论者大幅偏离其典型的价值观表达模式。我们讨论了这些发现对旨在支持跨分歧建设性互动的在线社交平台设计的启示。