Beyond Satisfaction: Learning Associations Between Content, Reviews, and Well-Being

Digital platforms commonly optimize for satisfaction using signals such as ratings, likes, and sentiment, implicitly treating satisfaction as a proxy for user well-being. Psychological theory, however, characterizes well-being as a multidimensional construct that extends beyond satisfaction or short-term positivity. In this paper, we examine whether commonly used satisfaction signals capture expressions of well-being, and what types of content are associated with different well-being outcomes. Our study focuses on book consumption, a convenient domain wherein users engage substantially with fixed pieces of content and sometimes provide nuanced long-form feedback. Our results show that (a) rating scales and sentiment only loosely correlate with most facets of psychological well-being and (b) ratings and sentiment are more closely aligned with immediate and hedonic as opposed to enduring and eudaimonic expressions of well-being. Further, by linking reviews to book content, we find that themes related to values, and institutions like religion (Pearson r = 0.35) or human drives (r=.26) are associated with higher meaning and accomplishment respectively, while incivility (avg r = -.15) and past-focused language (avg r = -.12) are associated with lower well-being. These findings motivate richer outcome targets for content recommendation systems beyond satisfaction alone.

How Far Did They Go? The Persuasive Tactics of Covert LLM Agents in a Discontinued Field Experiment

This study analyzes a publicly released dataset from a discontinued field experiment on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView. The intervention, conducted by unknown, external researchers and halted following ethical backlash, involved undisclosed AI-generated accounts engaging users in live debate. After public disclosure, Reddit authorized moderators to release an archive of the AI-generated comments, creating a rare opportunity to examine how large language models operated in an identity-rich deliberative forum without disclosure. We conduct a structured content analysis of this corpus, evaluating identity performance, authority signaling, alignment strategies, and activation of cognitive heuristics. Identity targeting or adoption appears in over two-thirds of comments, alignment moves and authority claims in nearly all of them, and cognitive-bias triggers -- particularly confirmation bias, representativeness, and availability -- in the large majority. These patterns co-occur systematically, composing a rhetorical architecture calibrated for persuasive efficiency rather than authentic deliberative participation. Compared against human-authored CMV counter-arguments, the agents inverted the typical distribution on every dimension: denser authority use, more adversarial alignment, and heavier reliance on external citation over experiential grounding. In such environments, distinctions between authentic and synthetic epistemic standing grow increasingly opaque -- an asymmetry that disclosure mandates alone cannot address. The results point toward auditing frameworks capable of assessing how AI systems structure credibility, not merely whether they are present.