Mitigating Linguistic Aggression in Group Decision-Making: A Comparative Analysis of AI-Driven Hostility Detection

Abstract The process of group decision-making is an integral component not only for quotidian interactions but also for strategic deliberations. However, it is profoundly shaped by the inherent semantic indeterminacy of natural language. This linguistic ambiguity starkly contrasts the syntactic and semantic precision characteristic of machine-generated language. Furthermore, the conveyance of affective states–such as aggressiveness or elation–via natural language introduces a layer of complexity that can significantly perturb the equilibrium of the group decision-making process. In response to these challenges, we propose an advanced consensus-reaching methodology based on sentiment analysis to quantify and mitigate aggressiveness in discourse. This study conducts a comparative evaluation of three state-of-the-art large language models: Gemini, Copilot, and ChatGPT for their efficacy in detecting and assessing hostility. By calibrating the influence of individual participants based on their degree of linguistic aggression, the proposed framework attenuates the disproportionate impact of dominant voices, thus fostering a more balanced and equitable deliberative environment. This methodological innovation not only incentivizes the adoption of a more dispassionate and constructive linguistic register but also safeguards the integrity of collective decision-making processes against the distortive effects of undue emotional influence. Across five repeated evaluations per comment, ChatGPT and Gemini exhibited $$<5\%$$ variance, while Copilot showed $$\approx 8-12 \%$$ ; in all cases, hostility-aware weighting reduced the most aggressive expert’s influence by $$ \approx 27-29 \%$$ , yielding robust group rankings. These mechanisms improve consensus quality by reducing bias from aggressive discourse, and they are expected to foster higher group satisfaction through perceived fairness in deliberation. Potential improvements include benchmarking against gold standards, extending to multilingual and multimodal contexts, and enhancing transparency for end-users.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Evolving Systems
Published
2026-03-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12530-026-09813-1
Primary Topic
Mental Health via Writing
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Mitigating Linguistic Aggression in Group Decision-Making: A Comparative Analysis of AI-Driven Hostility Detection

Juan Carlos González-Quesada, Ignacio Javier Pérez, José Ramón Trillo, Francisco Javier Cabrerizo
Evolving Systems
Mental Health via Writing
article

Mitigating Linguistic Aggression in Group Decision-Making: A Comparative Analysis of AI-Driven Hostility Detection

Juan Carlos González-Quesada, Ignacio Javier Pérez, José Ramón Trillo, Francisco Javier Cabrerizo
article en

Abstract

Abstract The process of group decision-making is an integral component not only for quotidian interactions but also for strategic deliberations. However, it is profoundly shaped by the inherent semantic indeterminacy of natural language. This linguistic ambiguity starkly contrasts the syntactic and semantic precision characteristic of machine-generated language. Furthermore, the conveyance of affective states–such as aggressiveness or elation–via natural language introduces a layer of complexity that can significantly perturb the equilibrium of the group decision-making process. In response to these challenges, we propose an advanced consensus-reaching methodology based on sentiment analysis to quantify and mitigate aggressiveness in discourse. This study conducts a comparative evaluation of three state-of-the-art large language models: Gemini, Copilot, and ChatGPT for their efficacy in detecting and assessing hostility. By calibrating the influence of individual participants based on their degree of linguistic aggression, the proposed framework attenuates the disproportionate impact of dominant voices, thus fostering a more balanced and equitable deliberative environment. This methodological innovation not only incentivizes the adoption of a more dispassionate and constructive linguistic register but also safeguards the integrity of collective decision-making processes against the distortive effects of undue emotional influence. Across five repeated evaluations per comment, ChatGPT and Gemini exhibited $$<5\%$$ variance, while Copilot showed $$\approx 8-12 \%$$ ; in all cases, hostility-aware weighting reduced the most aggressive expert’s influence by $$ \approx 27-29 \%$$ , yielding robust group rankings. These mechanisms improve consensus quality by reducing bias from aggressive discourse, and they are expected to foster higher group satisfaction through perceived fairness in deliberation. Potential improvements include benchmarking against gold standards, extending to multilingual and multimodal contexts, and enhancing transparency for end-users.

Evolving SystemsVol. 17(2)
Universidad de Granada (ES), Instituto Andaluz de Ciencias de la Tierra (ES)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Mental Health via Writing
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.