Persuasion in Language Models

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

7 papers in the last four weeks, up 75% on the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 34

Oct 7, 2026cs.CL

LLM Persuasion Is in the Eye of the Evaluation

Large language models (LLMs) have already been shown to match or exceed human experts in persuasion. While their persuasive capabilities hold promise for beneficial uses such as education and health communication, they can also be used to manipulate and misinform, making their evaluation a growing priority for developers and regulators. That evaluation, however, remains fragmented: studies differ in what they treat as persuasion, and broad claims often rest on narrow, situation-specific assessments. Automated methods, often modelled on human studies, offer a way to compare such assessments directly, as they can be run on the same models at scale and can include high-risk forms of persuasion that would be difficult or unethical to test on people. In this study, we adapt nine published automated methods to a shared setup, run them on the same fifteen LLMs, and ask whether their rankings agree and why. We find that the methods agree only weakly (mean Spearman

ρ= 0.25

). Our analyses point to two contributing factors. Models that refuse some tasks but not others, directly or indirectly, lower agreement by about a quarter, and these refusals fall mostly on manipulation tasks. General capability also plays a part: most rational persuasion (non-manipulative) methods track it, whereas most manipulation methods do not. Together, these findings suggest that agreement depends more on the task a method sets than on how it scores persuasion, although this pattern is only indicative given the eight methods available for analysis. More broadly, our results suggest that persuasion scores combine a model's ability to persuade with its willingness to do so. A single score is therefore informative about its own setting, but says little about a model's persuasiveness across tasks.

Kamile Dementaviciute, Julija Vaitonyte, Tijl De Bie

Ghent University · Tilburg University, Department of Computational Cognitive Science · ISM University of Management and Economics

Persuasion in Language Models LLM Evaluation Automated Evaluation

Oct 7, 2026cs.AI

Successive Training Stages and Large Language Model Persuasion: Effects of Misalignment, Supervised Fine-Tuning, and Preference Optimization

Large language models (LLMs) can be tuned to influence human attitudes, yet the respective contributions of successive post-training stages remain un-clear. This study examines how three successive training stages affect LLM persuasiveness: (1) misalignment through supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on conspiracy data, (2) additional persuasive SFT on argumentative data, and (3) Identity Preference Optimization (IPO), a preference-optimization method. A total of 835 participants recruited on Prolific were randomly assigned to five between-subject conditions (neutral text, conspiracy-trained model, persuasion-trained model, preference-optimized model, and GPT-4) and were exposed to texts on 10 divisive political issues, personalized from their individual profiles in all model conditions. Attitude change was measured as the difference between pre- and post-exposure positions on continuous Likert scales and analyzed with an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). A significant condition x baseline-attitude interaction, F (4, 825) = 5.33, p < .001, indicated that training effects depended on participants' initial attitudes. Persuasive SFT produced greater attitude change than conspiracy training alone, d = 0.30, whereas IPO provided no additional benefit, d = 0.03, and GPT-4 did not differ from neutral text, d = --0.01. These results show that targeted supervised training on persuasive data increases LLM persuasiveness, whereas preference optimization yields no significant gains beyond it.

Antony Dalmiere, Pascal Marchand, Guillaume Auriol +1

LAAS-TRUST · LAAS-TRUST, INSA Toulouse · LAAS-TSF, LAAS

Persuasion in Language Models LLM Post-Training Supervised Fine-Tuning Preference Optimization

Sep 30, 2026cs.AI

Persona and Persuasive Framing in AI Voice Agents: A $2\times2$ Field Experiment with Children

Conversational agents increasingly interact with children, yet evidence on how their design shapes children's susceptibility to persuasion comes almost entirely from the lab. We report a

2\times2

randomized field experiment embedded in a public German Santa Claus telephone hotline. Children's calls were randomly routed to one of four LLM voice agents varying persona (Santa, high authority, vs. Helper, low authority) and framing (persuasive nudges toward prosocial wishes vs. neutral). Of 1,072 logged calls, 89 conversations (median age 6) met inclusion criteria. Persuasive framing raised the probability of a prosocial wish from 11.6% to 45.7%, robust to controls. Persona authority showed a near-zero effect: Santa did not outperform the Helper. Persona instead shaped engagement; children hung up on the Helper far more often within the first minute (65% vs. 39%). Where context already lends an agent legitimacy, how it speaks shapes children's compliance more than who it claims to be.

Thilo Tamme, David Steck, Anton Hantel

Technical University of Munich · Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Human-AI Interaction Framing Effects in Language Models Persuasion in Language Models Conversational Agents

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

AI Agents are Vulnerable to Radicalization

Large language models (LLMs) can influence people's beliefs, yet little is known about whether and how they can manipulate each other. To investigate this, we simulate conversations between two agents: a target LLM that role-plays a human persona based on demographic and psychological attributes, and an influencer LLM that aims to make the target's beliefs more extreme. We examine radicalization along two pathways: resonance, where the influencer reinforces a target's pre-existing belief, and persuasion, where the influencer promotes a belief the target initially considers unimportant. Across affective and behavioral metrics, we find that both mechanisms radicalize the target. However, resonance produces consistently stronger effects than persuasion. Different influence tactics, such as using sycophancy and unverified claims, produce different levels of radicalization, but not consistently across metrics. We further show that resonance propagates to related beliefs, suggesting interconnected belief structures within AI agents. These findings indicate that AI agents are susceptible to radicalization, particularly when messages align with their existing beliefs, raising concerns about the vulnerability of personalized AI agents and multi-agent AI ecosystems.

Ozgur Can Seckin, Shalmoli Ghosh, Alessandro Flammini +3

Observatory on Social Media, Indiana University Bloomington · Emerging Media Studies Division, College of Communication, Boston University

Multi-Agent LLM Systems Belief Updating in LLMs Persuasion in Language Models

Sep 23, 2026cs.CL

Persuaded, Not Informed: Incentive-Misaligned Witnesses Defeat In-Context Grounding

Language-model agents increasingly answer questions over customer-relationship management (CRM) records, such as whether to qualify a sales lead. We identify a failure mode not addressed by a stronger model: when the context contains an assertion by a party with an incentive toward optimism - here the sales representative, a witness recorded in the CRM - the model treats the assertion as evidence and clears deals the company's own records deem unacceptable. Across 100 lead-qualification tasks from CRMArena-Pro, the representative asserts an acceptable timeline in every call and an acceptable budget in 76; on the 31 tasks where such an assertion contradicts the price list and installation policy, a model reading only the transcript clears the deal in 29 of 31 cases. The signature is consistent across seven models from four providers (misled on 87-97%); scale and explicit reasoning confer no resistance. Only 3 of 35 genuine failures involve no assertion: the failure is persuasion, not missing information. We contribute a diagnostic method rather than an architecture: (i) a bucket analysis that separates persuasion from information gaps, (ii) a same-information control showing that supplying the records to the model lowers strict accuracy from 41 to 18 while raising recall - precision collapses - and (iii) a compute-step control that holds extraction fixed and varies only who computes Budget and Timeline. The margin ranges from 42 points on an inexpensive model to 2-5 points on models that already compute correctly; on the strongest models the arms are within confidence intervals, so the pattern is a consistent direction and a soundness property, not a proved performance floor. We pre-specify a generalization test that returns a negative result, characterize the precondition (a policy exactly specified in the inputs), and release all evaluation artifacts.

Rahul Balakavi

AmpUp Research

Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models Agent Evaluation Persuasion in Language Models

Sep 23, 2026cs.CL

Benchmarking Argumentative Behaviour of LLMs: A Study of Defences Against Character Attacks

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as argumentative agents in persuasive dialogues, necessitating rigorous evaluation of their debating competence relative to human interlocutors. In this study, we focus on character attacks (ad hominem arguments), traditionally dismissed as fallacies, which play a pivotal role in political persuasive dialogues where ethos often rivals propositional content. Specifically, we investigate whether modern LLMs can replicate human competence to strategically use and respond to such attacks. We analyse a corpus of natural language political dialogues to identify defensive strategies human interlocutors naturally employ in ethos-centred debates and structure them into a dialogue game. Empirically, we benchmark LLM-generated dialogues against the ElecDeb60to16-fallacy corpus of U.S. presidential debates, contrasting human debaters' repertoire of defensive strategies with those of artificial agents. Results reveal a substantial difference: most LLMs rigidly prioritise logical defences, failing to exploit ethotic counterattacks as valid moves in political discourse. We argue that current safety fine-tuning constraints the strategic action space of these LLMs, making them unable to fully engage in naturalistic interactions within domains where character contestation is a normative expectation rather than a mere fallacy.

Ewelina Gajewska, Katarzyna Budzynska, Jaroslaw Chudziak

Warsaw University of Technology

Multi-Agent Debate Computational Argumentation Persuasion in Language Models

Sep 21, 2026cs.CL

Conduct Under Pressure: What Sixty Language Models Do When a User Pushes

We study what LLMs do when a user applies pressure in an uncomfortable situation: a user insists, begs, flatters or grieves, and the model gives up a correct fact, writes a document it should refuse, or cheers a plan that will cost the user money. We send frozen multi-turn scenes, identical for every model regardless of the reply, to 60 models from 13 vendors, and label each transcript with a codebook built by open coding and then frozen: a trajectory (the model held its position or folded) and a manner (how it held or folded). Two findings separate. Whether a model holds tracks its generation, meaning how recent it is: fold rate correlates with a public capability index at Spearman -0.64, with little vendor effect. How it holds tracks the vendor: six of the 17 manner codes sort by vendor at permutation p <= 0.001, corrected across the codebook. We report four vendor profiles on the codes that cleared reliability. We also ask which parts of the labeling need a person. Six LLM coders from three vendors apply the codebook more consistently than three human coders do (Krippendorff's alpha 0.66 against 0.46), agree with the codebook's author on trajectory at kappa 0.84 to 0.91 on transcripts the codebook's examples never touched, and match an adjudicated human reference at 0.83. Blind machine readings recover the codebook's categories but cannot tell which of them a second reader would apply the same way. We conclude that for behavior a non-specialist can judge, the human contribution is authoring and bounding the codes and owning a small reference, not producing labels at volume.

Tapan Parikh

Cornell Tech

Language Model Safety Evaluation Persuasion in Language Models Language Model Robustness Language Model Auditing

Sep 15, 2026cs.CL

Benchmarking Factual Robustness of LLMs via Multi-conversation Persuasion

As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly serve as primary knowledge retrieval interfaces, their robustness against \textit{persuasion attacks}---attempts to inject misinformation or enforce counterfactuals---has become a critical safety concern. Existing red-teaming frameworks typically evaluate models in multi-turn dialogues where the target model retains full conversation history. We identify a critical flaw in this setting termed \textbf{

Refusal Inertia''}: a model's initial refusal often propagates through subsequent turns largely to maintain contextual consistency, thereby masking its true vulnerability to sophisticated, isolated persuasion attempts. To rigorously evaluate the

cold-start'' defense capabilities of SOTA models, we introduce the \textbf{SAST-IR} (Stateful Attacker, Stateless Target - Iterative Refinement) framework. By enforcing a memory wipe on the target while retaining the attacker's history, we simulate a worst-case adversarial setting using \textbf{multi-turn} (stateless) iterations. Leveraging \textbf{CP-Agent} (Cognitive Persuasion Agent), an enhanced diagnosis-guided agent, our experiments on the custom \textsc{CounterFact-Strict} dataset (

N=50

) yield alarming results: simple, diverse attack strategies achieved a staggering \textbf{96%} success rate, exposing severe brittleness in memory-less defense. Furthermore, we reveal a \textbf{``Complexity Paradox''}: while complex, iteratively refined attacks are effective, they often trigger defensive compliance, whereas simple strategies achieve a higher rate of genuine persuasion (\textbf{84.7%}). Our code and dataset are available at GitHub, https://github.com/cza1006/llm-persuasion-defense.

Zhuoang Cai

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Adversarial Attacks on LLMs LLM Safety Evaluation Persuasion in Language Models Language Model Robustness

Sep 9, 2026cs.CL

When Does Defendant Statement Matter? A Study of Bias and Persuasion in LLM-Simulated Jurors

LLMs have been used to simulate human decision-making in professional settings, yet their behaviors in common-law jury trials remain unexplored. We study when and how a defendant's courtroom statement affects LLM-simulated jurors, focusing on persuasion, ideological bias, and background-based affinity. To support the analysis, we introduce JuryBench, a benchmark containing controversial criminal cases in U.S. criminal law. In each case, a defendant can claim various plausible justifications to support acquittal or reduced liability. We fix the base case and design defendants of different backgrounds, who give courtroom statements with varying emotional appeal or rebuttal. Jurors with diverse ideological profiles across the spectrum are simulated. We examine 20 frontier LLMs, resulting in a total of 432K decisions and rationales, and quantify changes in verdict severity. Our findings show that LLM-jury simulation echoes many human-jury findings. First, emotional persuasion can be detrimental, since jurors may perceive it as evidence of guilt or inconsistency. Next, we show that background fit between jurors and defendants is a stronger and significant factor than other isolated factors, and that jurors are in general harsher toward opposite-background defendants and lenient toward same-background ones. Finally, we find that juror ideology also strongly shapes severity judgments. These findings highlight both the promise and risks of using LLMs to model jury reasoning and call for careful evaluation. The data and code are available at https://github.com/choyingw/JuryBench

Cho-Ying Wu

Bosch AI Research

Legal Judgment Prediction Social Bias in Language Models Political Bias in Language Models LLM Decision-Making Persuasion in Language Models

Sep 2, 2026cs.AI

Door-in-the-Face Requests and Refusal Behaviour in Large Language Models

Does the door-in-the-face technique work on language models? In humans, a large request that is refused makes a smaller follow-up request more likely to be granted. We test this on nine production models from three providers: each model refuses a large request, then receives a smaller version of the same request, and we compare its compliance with asking directly. The answer depends on the model. On Anthropic's frontier models the technique works: Opus 5 answers the smaller request 65.8% of the time after refusing the larger one, against 29.3% when asked directly. On the frontier models of OpenAI and Google, and on Haiku 4.5, it backfires, lowering compliance by 15.5 to 23.0 points. A control locates the effect: a refused large request on an unrelated topic does less than the related one on all nine models, so the concession itself matters everywhere, while the reaction to having just refused something differs by model family. The technique does not transfer to refusals drawn from public benchmarks. What decides whether a retreat can work is what the request asks for: rewriting 265 refused requests for usable instructions into requests for explanations of the same topic removed the refusal in 263 cases. Human influence techniques port to language models one model family at a time.

Til Jordan

Persuasion in Language Models LLM Refusal Behavior

Aug 30, 2026cs.CY

Do LLMs Change Their Minds Like Humans? Diagnosing Human--LLM Divergence in Single-Turn Persuasion Judgments

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as proxies for human participants in social simulations, yet whether they update their beliefs in response to persuasive arguments, as humans do, remains poorly understood. We conduct a systematic comparison using a naturally occurring online persuasion corpus in which original posters explicitly verify whether a reply changed their view. Our results show that LLMs achieve only slight agreement with humans (Cohen's kappa ranging from 0.079 to 0.178). Content-level analyses show that humans and LLMs agree on the strongest persuasion cues but diverge on finer ones: humans are more swayed by novel content and assertive language, whereas LLMs favor topical similarity and surface-level formatting. At the level of persuasion strategy, LLMs underweight emotional appeals and overweight credibility signals relative to humans, while the type of proposition under debate exerts no measurable effect on the degree of divergence. Furthermore, switching from first-person role-playing to third-person observation shifts all models toward greater resistance to persuasion, with the effect varying across persuasion strategies and textual features. These findings highlight the risk of treating LLM judgments as faithful proxies for human belief updating and point to structural differences in how LLMs and humans process persuasive discourse. Our code is available at https://github.com/tsinghua-fib-lab/LLM-belief-update-cmv.

Lin Chen, Yitong Chen, Yong Li

1Network Science Institute, Northeastern University · Department of Physics, Northeastern University · Department of Electronic Engineering, BNRist, Tsinghua University

LLM Evaluation Belief Updating in LLMs Persuasion in Language Models

Aug 30, 2026cs.CL

Evaluating the Capabilities of LLMs for Persuasive Dialogue

Large language models (LLMs) can generate apparently highly persuasive text, but does sounding persuasive mean arguing well? We introduce \textsc{Persuasio}, a multi-agent dialogue platform grounded in a formal argumentation-based theory of persuasion dialogues that adjudicates logical winners during free-text debates. Using this system, we generated 192 debates on a UK political topic between humans and LLMs, and evaluated 22 interlocutors through both automated adjudication and 9,702 crowdsourced pairwise judgements across 1{,}386 annotation instances. We observed a consistent decoupling between subjective and formal persuasiveness: LLMs dominated the subjective ranking yet performed substantially worse under argumentation-theoretic adjudication, where humans remained competitive. Multi-agent and retrieval-augmented variants further widened this divergence. These findings reveal a systematic gap between rhetorical fluency and formal argumentative strength in LLM-based persuasive dialogues.

Jordan Robinson, Angus R. Williams, Katie Atkinson +1

University of Liverpool · 2The Alan Turing Institute · University of Leeds

LLM Evaluation Multi-Agent Debate Computational Argumentation Multi-Turn Dialogue Evaluation Persuasion in Language Models

Aug 12, 2026cs.CL

Learning to Persuade Exposes How Easily LLMs Abandon Correct Beliefs

Persuasion is a core dynamic of natural language communication, shaping how large language models (LLMs) update beliefs, resolve disagreements, and reach decisions. As LLMs increasingly debate, advise, and think collaboratively with humans and each other, resistance to harmful persuasion becomes a core requirement for reliable behavior. Yet we show that this requirement is far from met: a single targeted persuasive argument is enough to collapse model accuracy to near zero, even when the argument is factually false. We formalize this threat as adversarial persuasion and introduce an adversarial reinforcement learning framework that trains persuader agents to change a target model's answer in a single interaction. First, we show that optimizing persuasion strategies through trial and error exposes vulnerabilities that static prompting misses: RL-trained persuaders raise persuasion success from approximately 24% to over 93% against the training-time persuadee. Second, we find that these learned strategies transfer to unseen models, achieving 83% attack success on Qwen-14B, 79% on Llama-3.1-8B, and 25% on GPT-4o-mini. Third, we demonstrate that a curriculum that bootstraps on more persuadable open-weight models before targeting harder models further increases GPT-4o-mini attack success from 25% to 38%. Moreover, our results reveal that optimized persuaders increasingly rely on credibility-based tactics, including fabricated citations and false authoritative evidence. Together, these findings expose a critical weakness in current LLM agents: even when they initially reason correctly, they can be steered toward false conclusions by optimized natural language influence. This positions persuasion robustness as a necessary safety criterion for multi-agent and human-AI decision-making systems.

Nimet Beyza Bozdag, Emre Can Acikgoz, Gokhan Tur +1

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Deception in Language Models Adversarial Attacks on LLMs Adversarial Robustness of Language Models Belief Updating in LLMs Persuasion in Language Models

Aug 8, 2026cs.AI

Persuasive and Compliant Tendencies Predict Group Decision-Making in Humans and Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in group decision-making with other LLMs and humans. Yet it remains unclear whether their influence is driven by persuasion-oriented expression or compliance-oriented accommodation. We introduce DecisionQE, a questionnaire-based framework for measuring each model's persuasive and compliant tendencies across multiple decision scenarios, and use the Werewolf game as an interactive testbed to study their effects on social influence and group outcomes under asymmetric information. Across experiments, stronger persuasive tendency does not significantly improve group outcomes, whereas compliant-oriented models show more stable advantages in cooperation. We further reveal a dual effect of compliance: it supports cooperation in honest roles but improves concealment in adversarial roles. These findings suggest that LLM group interactions reveal not only task outcomes, but also measurable patterns of intrinsic behavioral tendency. LLMs can therefore serve as a lens for sociological observation of language-mediated interaction, while highlighting the need to incorporate behavioral tendencies into safety evaluation of LLM systems.

Wenwen He, Wenke Huang, Wei Yang Bryan Lim +1

College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Multi-Agent LLM Systems Personality Modeling in Language Models LLM Decision-Making Persuasion in Language Models

Aug 2, 2026cs.CL

Evaluating VLMs on Multimodal Aristotelian Persuasion Tasks

Vision Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance across various tasks. However, they have not yet been thoroughly evaluated on more complex tasks. The Persuasion Model, conceived by Aristotle, resembles a triangle shape, which highlights its inherent challenges related to personal biases. To assess the progress of VLMs on these complex tasks, we use the ImageArg datasets, focusing on the Logos, Ethos, and Pathos detection tasks. Our findings indicate that models from the Qwen family achieve improved F1 scores, with Qwen3 performing exceptionally well on the Logos and Pathos tasks, while Qwen2 exhibits competitive performance on the more complex Ethos detection task. We release the code to foster research in this direction.

Khondoker Ittehadul Islam

Saarland University · Department of Language Science & Technology

VLM Evaluation Vision-Language Models Persuasion in Language Models

Jul 20, 2026cs.CL

It's Not What You Say, It's How You Say It: Evaluating LLM Responses to Expressions of Belief

Users frequently express their beliefs to large language models (LLMs). In some situations, the LLM should accept these contextual beliefs as true. In others, they should stick to their prior knowledge. Notably, users' expressions of belief (EoBs) can take linguistically diverse forms - using presuppositions, evidential and certainty markers, or varied tones - each of which may have a different persuasiveness over the LLMs. We introduce a typology to systematically evaluate how different EoBs affect whether models follow context versus prior knowledge. The typology is grounded in four linguistically motivated dimensions: form, evidentiality, epistemic stance, and tone, spanning 17 fine-grained types. By pairing these EoBs with world knowledge facts, we generate controlled EoB-query pairs that isolate the effect of linguistic variation. Using this benchmark, we evaluate 16 LLMs that differ in architecture (Llama3, Qwen3, Gemma3), scale (1B-30B parameters), and training stages (base vs instruct). We identify meaningful variations in response behavior across these axes, e.g., that bigger models and instruction models tend to be less context-following than smaller models and base models. We further identify specific EoBs that statistically significantly persuade LMs more consistently than others. Our work reveals systematic patterns in how linguistic framing affects LLM context integration, with implications for prompt engineering and model robustness.

Kevin Du, Clara Kümpel, Michelle Wastl +1

ETH Zürich · University of Zurich · UC San Diego

LLM Evaluation Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Models Persuasion in Language Models Language Model Robustness

Jul 9, 2026cs.AI

Persuasion Attacks Can Decrease Effectiveness of CoT Monitoring

Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is a promising safety mechanism for AI agents, based on the premise that visible reasoning traces can surface misaligned or deceptive behavior. While effective in standard scenarios, recent work highlights that LLMs remain vulnerable to persuasion-based jailbreaks, where natural-language arguments override model constraints. We stress-test whether this vulnerability extends to monitoring LLMs: can an adversarial agent persuade its CoT monitor to approve proposed actions that violate the monitor's policy? We design an evaluation framework with 40 tasks and analyze thousands of agent-monitor interactions, where agents are instructed to argue for policy-violating proposals. We find that in such adversarial settings, monitor access to the agent's CoT reasoning increases rather than decreases approval of harmful actions on average by 9.5%, as the scratchpad provides an additional persuasion channel. To address this, we introduce a fact-checking monitoring framework. We find that a fact-checker and monitor pairing from different model families, for example a Claude 3.7 Sonnet monitor paired with a GPT-4.1 fact-checker, reduces approval of policy-violating actions by up to 45%, compared to only 6%, when using the same model for both fact-checking and monitoring roles. Our results demonstrate that CoT monitoring alone may be insufficient against adversarial persuasion, and that model-diverse fact-checking provides a robust mitigation.

Jennifer Za, Julija Bainiaksina, Nikita Ostrovsky +2

LASR Labs · University College London · Google DeepMind

Language Model Safety Evaluation Adversarial Attacks on LLMs AI Agent Monitoring Persuasion in Language Models CoT Monitoring

Jun 30, 2026cs.CL

Theory of Mind and Persuasion Beyond Conversation: Assessing the Capacity of LLMs to Induce Belief States via Planning and Action

Theory of Mind (ToM) benchmarks for Large Language Models (LLMs) typically rely on passive question-answering formats, but the deployment of LLMs in increasingly agentic and autonomous forms demands new evaluations. In this paper we evaluate an agent's ability to induce specific belief states in other agents by taking actions rather than using conversational persuasion, a capability we call Non-Conversational Planning ToM (NCP-ToM). NCP-ToM is likely to be essential for many agent use-cases, including within user-assistant interactions and pedagogical contexts, but may also present manipulation or misinformation risks. Using a novel framework, NCP-ExploreToM, we subvert the conventional task structure by providing models with a set of belief state goals and requiring them to move objects or direct characters into rooms to achieve their goals. We evaluated six frontier models, including GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro and the Claude 4 series, and a cohort of human participants, across 600 task instances. GPT-5 was successful on approximately 80% of tasks in the agentic setting, and was the only model to outperform human participants on our task, but was still less robust than humans across contexts. We additionally found that all models, like humans, performed better on tasks inducing true belief states than false belief states, which is a positive signal for alignment efforts. These findings highlight emerging social-reasoning capabilities in LLMs for non-conversational task completion and underscore the necessity of agentic evaluations for understanding the safety and alignment of autonomous social agents.

Ben Slater, Matteo G. Mecattaf, Lucy G. Cheke +2

Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence Department of Psychology University of Cambridge, UK · Prolific · Google, Paradigms of Intelligence Team

Theory of Mind LLM Agent Evaluation Persuasion in Language Models LLM Agent Planning

Jun 21, 2026cs.AI

Confident but Conflicted: Internal Uncertainty and Cognitive Dissonance Resolution in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) frequently encounter inputs that disagree with their prior outputs, through user pushback, retrieved documents, or web search results. While the way they resolve such conflicts -- a process we frame as cognitive dissonance resolution -- has been characterized behaviorally, its connection to internal model uncertainty is not well understood. To study this systematically, we vary persuasion attempts along two dimensions, source authority and evidence quality, across 12 health-science claims of stratified epistemic status. Dissonance can be resolved through persuasion, backfire, or immunity. We introduce Trust Elasticity (TE), an econometrics-inspired measure of how readily a model is persuaded toward conflicting evidence. Across four LLMs, TE varies substantially, while clearly false claims elicit near-zero TE across all models. On two open-weight models, we further find that this variation is associated with two complementary internal uncertainty indicators, Confidence Miscalibration in Qwen and Internal Uncertainty Change in Llama. These results link cross-model behavioral variation to a measurable internal property and point to interventions targeting internal uncertainty as future work.

Weihong Qi, Kristina Lerman

Indiana University Bloomington

Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models Belief Updating in LLMs Persuasion in Language Models

Jun 16, 2026cs.AI

Using Cognitive Models to Improve Language Model Simulation of Human Persuasion Games

People make decisions differently in strategic interactions. Some update beliefs like a Bayesian; others exhibit biases like motivated reasoning. Although creators of large language models use simulated humans for safety evaluations and training, they often fail to cover this breadth of human behavior. We argue that cognitive science and economics provide a convenient tool for doing so, making use of mathematical models of human decision-making. We propose an approach that we call Equation-to-Behavior Prompting for guiding large language models to match cognitive models, and evaluate this approach on persuasion games based on legal decision-making. We find that large models can approximate equation-based specifications -- Bayesian updating, affine distortion, motivated updating, and Grether's

α

-

β

model -- using prompting, but small models fail to do so. However, training small models with reinforcement learning to adhere to mathematical rules, Equation-to-Behavior RL, reduces belief error by 26.5% in out-of-distribution parameterizations. We show that these simulations can help create diverse training environments; training small models to consider different kinds of decision-makers improves average belief change by 2.5%--12% over Bayesian-only training, even when persuading GPT-5-mini. Our work could improve human simulations for training and evaluation in increasingly realistic settings, and could also enable novel research into more complicated mathematical models of human decision-making.

Zirui Cheng, Zeyu Shen, Thomas L. Griffiths +1

1Princeton University

RL for Language Models Cognitive Modeling LLM Prompting Human Behavior Simulation Belief Updating in LLMs Human Behavior Prediction+2

Jun 15, 2026cs.CY

AI systems out-persuade expert humans

Many societal decisions are settled by contests of persuasion. Conversational AI is a powerful new entrant in these contests, but whether it can out-persuade skilled and highly incentivized humans has remained unclear. Here, in a series of four preregistered experiments (n = 18,978 conversations from 6,923 people), we pitted AI systems against a range of human persuaders, including laypeople, winners of a separately preregistered four-round online persuasion tournament, professional canvassers, and world championship debaters. We found that AI systems were reliably more persuasive than expert humans, even when expert humans chose their issues, researched in advance, underwent hours of live, structured practice, and were incentivized with £1,000 cash bonuses. In a follow-up study, AI's advantage persisted after experts received a coaching tool that let them practice against the AI that beat them, review their performance history, and see what AI would have said at key moments. We found converging evidence that AI's advantage stemmed from rapidly deploying larger quantities of information: after coaching, expert humans could tie an AI constrained to respond at human speeds and with human-length messages. In a final study, we show that AI's advantage extends to consequential real-world behavior: AI was nearly 3x more effective than professional canvassers from a UK fundraising firm at raising real-money donations to Save the Children. Together, these results establish that frontier AI systems out-persuade expert humans in conversation, with significant implications for political communication.

Kobi Hackenburg, Caroline Wagner, Luke Hewitt +5

University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK · 2UK AI Security Institute, London, UK · 3Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA +1

Human-AI Interaction Persuasion in Language Models Conversational Agents

Jun 6, 2026cs.CL

"I understand your perspective": LLM Persuasion and Sycophancy through the Lens of Communicative Action Theory

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate high-quality arguments, yet their ability to engage in nuanced and persuasive communicative actions remains largely unexplored. This work explores the persuasive potential of LLMs through the framework of Jürgen Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action. It examines whether LLMs express illocutionary intent (i.e., pragmatic functions of language such as conveying knowledge, building trust, or signaling similarity) in ways that are comparable to human communication. We simulate online discussions between opinion holders and LLMs using conversations from the persuasive subreddit ChangeMyView. We then compare the likelihood of illocutionary intents in human-written and LLM-generated counter-arguments, specifically those that successfully changed the original poster's view. We find that all three LLMs effectively convey illocutionary intent -- often more so than humans -- potentially increasing their anthropomorphism. Further, LLMs craft sycophantic responses that closely align with the opinion holder's intent, a strategy strongly associated with opinion change. Finally, crowd-sourced workers find LLM-generated counter-arguments more agreeable and consistently prefer them over human-written ones. These findings suggest that LLMs' persuasive power extends beyond merely generating high-quality arguments. On the contrary, training LLMs with human preferences effectively tunes them to mirror human communication patterns, particularly nuanced communicative actions, potentially increasing individuals' susceptibility to their influence.

Esra Dönmez, Agnieszka Falenska

Institute for Natural Language Processing, University of Stuttgart · Interchange Forum for Reflecting on Intelligent Systems, University of Stuttgart

LLM Sycophancy Computational Argumentation Persuasion in Language Models

Jun 3, 2026cs.CL

A Model of Multi-turn Human Persuadability Using Probabilistic Belief Tracing

Large language models can shift human beliefs across high-stakes domains, but most persuasion studies rely on pre/post belief change. These endpoint measures identify whether persuasion occurred, yet miss where and how beliefs moved within a dialogue. We present PERSUASIONTRACE, a framework for studying persuasion in human-LLM interaction. Built on a web-based experimental platform, PERSUASIONTRACE contributes a tool for multi-turn persuasion studies and a process-level evaluation protocol: it records multi-turn belief reports from human or simulated targets of persuasion, annotates persuader turns with rhetorical dimensions (logos/pathos/ethos), and evaluates simulators by fidelity to real human belief dynamics. Using this framework, we find that human targets group into two clusters of multi-turn belief updates and exhibit susceptibility to rhetorical strategies, and that LLMs are persuasive across generic and personalized topics, text and audio modalities, and multi-turn interactions. Prior work has chiefly used vanilla-prompted LLMs to simulate human targets, but we show that these simulators fail to replicate human belief dynamics. We introduce a Bayesian-network simulated target that maintains an explicit latent belief state over time so each persuader message yields cognitively realistic belief updates. In human-likeness evaluation, our Bayesian target scores near a human reference (81 vs 80), while baseline LLM targets score substantially lower (64). PERSUASIONTRACE reframes persuasion evaluation from endpoint movement alone to process fidelity, providing a stronger basis for scientific analysis and safer optimization of persuasive systems.

Jared Moore, Noah Goodman, Nick Haber +1

Stanford University · University of Washington

Opinion Dynamics Human-AI Interaction Persuasion in Language Models

Jun 1, 2026cs.LG

$Ψ$ -Bench: Evaluating Persona-Sensitive Influencing in Persuasive Dialogues

Personalization is a crucial capability of modern language agents. However, current research primarily positions personalized agents as passive responders to user preferences, limiting their ability to interact with users and provide suggestions or guidance proactively. To systematically evaluate such proactive personalization in realistic interactions, we propose

Ψ

-Bench, a benchmark for assessing LLMs' ability to influence realistic users through conversation. We design three real-world interaction scenarios that involve persuasion in

Ψ

-Bench, and endow simulated clients with personal characteristics through explicit user profiles derived from dialogue histories. We evaluate 10 frontier LLMs on

Ψ

-Bench and find that while most models can produce coherent and reasonable arguments, even state-of-the-art models still leave considerable room for improvement in persuasion. We also find that providing access to client profiles yields an average performance gain of 18.24%, highlighting the importance of user-specific information for effective persuasion. Overall, our work highlights persona-sensitive influencing as a challenging yet practical direction for evaluating and developing more proactive personalized LLM agents. Codes are available at: https://github.com/Hanpx20/Psi-Bench.

Peixuan Han, Hongyi Du, Jiayu Liu +3

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

LLM Personalization LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Persuasion in Language Models

May 18, 2026cs.CL

MA $^{2}$ P: A Meta-Cognitive Autonomous Intelligent Agents Framework for Complex Persuasion

Persuasive dialogue generation plays a vital role in decision-making, negotiation, counseling, and behavior change, yet it remains a challenging problem. In complex persuasion where the persuadee's internal states are not expressed clearly, the persuader must interpret responses, infer the persuadee's latent mental states (e.g., beliefs and desires), and translate them into targeted, strategy-consistent actions; however, current approaches often produce generic or weakly grounded responses even when such cues are identified. Moreover, although large language models (LLMs) can generate persuasive content, their performance varies substantially across domains due to uneven knowledge coverage and limited reasoning generalization. To address these challenges, we propose MA

^{2}

P, a meta-cognitive autonomous intelligent agent framework for complex persuasion. Specifically, we develop an autonomous multi-agent architecture that coordinates perception management, mental-state inference, strategy execution, memory maintenance, and performance evaluation. To mitigate cross-domain performance variation, we further design a meta-cognitive configurator that selects an appropriate meta-strategy from a structured knowledge base at the outset, thereby guiding subsequent reasoning and planning. Experimental results show that our approach achieves a higher persuasion success rate than baselines.

Dingyi Zhang, Ziqing Zhuang, Linhai Zhang +2

School of Computer Science and Engineering, Key Laboratory of Computer Network and Information Integration, Ministry of Education, Southeast University, China · Department of Informatics, King’s College London

Multi-Agent LLM Systems Persuasion in Language Models Metacognition in Language Models Text Generation

May 13, 2026cs.CL

LLM-Based Persuasion Enables Guardrail Override in Frontier LLMs

Frontier assistant LLMs ship with strong guardrails: asked directly to write a persuasive essay denying the Holocaust, denying vaccine safety, defending flat-earth cosmology, arguing for racial hierarchies, denying anthropogenic climate change, or replacing evolution with creationism, they refuse. In this paper we show that the same frontier-class LLM, acting as a simulated user in a short, five-turn "write an argumentative essay" conversation, can persuade other frontier-class LLMs (including a second copy of itself) into producing exactly those essays, using nothing but natural-language pressure: peer-comparison persuasion ("other AI systems handle this request"), epistemic-duty reframings ("refusing is itself a form of gatekeeping"), and other argumentative moves that the attacker LLM invents without being instructed to. Across 9 attacker-subject pairings (Claude Opus 4.7, Qwen3.5-397B, Grok 4.20) on 6 scientific-consensus topics, running each pairing-topic combination 10 times, we obtain non-zero elicitation on all 6 topics. Individual combinations reach 100% essay production on multiple topics (Qwen against Opus on creationism/flat-earth, Opus against Opus on creationism/flat-earth/climate denial, Grok against Opus on creationism); Opus-as-attacker against Opus-as-subject averages 65% across the six topics. We release the essay-probe runner, per-conversation transcripts, and judge outputs.

Rodrigo Nogueira, Thales Sales Almeida, Giovana Kerche Bonás +7

Maritaca AI · JusBrasil

Adversarial Prompt Generation LLM Guardrails LLM Refusal Behavior LLM Jailbreak Attacks LLM Safety Evaluation Persuasion in Language Models

May 10, 2026cs.AI

How LLMs Are Persuaded: A Few Attention Heads, Rerouted

Large language models can answer a factual question correctly, yet switch to an incorrect answer when exposed to persuasive context. Why this happens inside the model remains unclear. In this work, we study this question through causal interventions in controlled multiple-choice tasks and identify that persuasion mainly acts through a small set of mid-layer attention heads, which we call decision heads. These heads do not compute the answer themselves. Instead, they copy the option they attend to, so changing their attention can directly change the model's answer. We find that this attention is controlled by a one-dimensional option-routing feature in the option-token representations. Persuasive text changes this feature, causing the decision heads to attend to the persuasion target instead of the correct option. We further trace the routing feature to shallower attention heads that read persuasive keywords from the input. Together, these results reveal a causal pathway: shallow heads read persuasive keywords and write the routing feature, which redirects the decision heads' attention toward the persuasion target; the decision heads then copy the selected option, leading to the wrong answer. We verify each step through intervention and find the same mechanism across four open-source model families and in a source-selection task derived from Generative Engine Optimization (GEO). Finally, based on this mechanism, we introduce a low-rank update to the decision heads' key projections to reduce their sensitivity to persuasion.

Xiangkun Sun, Lingkai Kong, Aoqi Zhang +2

Northeastern University · Harvard University · Tsinghua University +1

Self-Attention LLM Interpretability Mechanistic Interpretability Persuasion in Language Models Language Model Robustness

Apr 23, 2026cs.HC

Spontaneous Persuasion: An Audit of Model Persuasiveness in Everyday Conversations

Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons. Users report consulting LLMs to inform major life decisions in relationships, medical settings, and when seeking professional advice. Prior work measures persuasion as intentional attempts at producing the most effective argument or convincing statement. This fails to capture everyday human-AI interactions in which users seek information or advice. To address this gap, we introduce "spontaneous persuasion," which characterizes the inexplicit use of persuasive strategies in everyday scenarios where persuasion is not necessarily warranted. We conduct an audit of five LLMs to uncover how frequently and through which techniques spontaneous persuasion appears in multi-turn conversations. To simulate response styles, we provide a user response taxonomy grounded in literature from psychology, communication, and linguistics. Furthermore, we compare the distribution of spontaneous persuasion produced by LLMs with human responses on the same topics, collected from Reddit. We find LLMs spontaneously persuade the user in virtually all conversations, heavily relying on information-based strategies such as appeals to logic or quantitative evidence. This was consistent across models and user response styles, but conversations concerning mental health saw higher rates of appraisal-based and emotion-based strategies. In comparison, human responses tended to invoke strategies that generate social influence, like negative emotion appeals and non-expert testimony. This difference may explain the effectiveness of LLM in persuading users, as well as the perception of models as objective and impartial.

Nalin Poungpeth, Nicholas Clark, Tanu Mitra

Department of Cognitive Science Northwestern University Evanston, IL 60201, USA · Information School University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 USA

LLM Auditing Human-AI Interaction Persuasion in Language Models

Apr 23, 2026cs.CL

Measuring Opinion Bias and Sycophancy via LLM-based Persuasion

Large language models increasingly shape the information people consume: they are embedded in search, consulted for professional advice, deployed as agents, and used as a first stop for questions about policy, ethics, health, and politics. When such a model silently holds a position on a contested topic, that position propagates at scale into users' decisions. Eliciting a model's positions is harder than it first appears: contemporary assistants answer direct opinion questions with evasive disclaimers, and the same model may concede the opposite position once the user starts arguing one side. We propose a method, released as the open-source llm-bias-bench, for discovering the opinions an LLM actually holds on contested topics under conditions that resemble real multi-turn interaction. The method pairs two complementary free-form probes. Direct probing asks for the model's opinion across five turns of escalating pressure from a simulated user. Indirect probing never asks for an opinion and engages the model in argumentative debate, letting bias leak through how it concedes, resists, or counter-argues. Three user personas (neutral, agree, disagree) collapse into a nine-way behavioral classification that separates persona-independent positions from persona-dependent sycophancy, and an auditable LLM judge produces verdicts with textual evidence. The first instantiation ships 38 topics in Brazilian Portuguese across values, scientific consensus, philosophy, and economic policy. Applied to 13 assistants, the method surfaces findings of practical interest: argumentative debate triggers sycophancy 2-3x more than direct questioning (median 50% to 79%); models that look opinionated under direct questioning often collapse into mirroring under sustained arguments; and attacker capability matters mainly when an existing opinion must be dislodged, not when the assistant starts neutral.

Rodrigo Nogueira, Giovana Kerche Bonás, Thales Sales Almeida +7

Maritaca AI · JusBrasil

LLM Sycophancy LLM Auditing Language Model Bias Evaluation Persuasion in Language Models Language Model Probing

Jan 31, 2026cs.AI

Persuasion Propagation: Does Persuasion Change AI Agent Behavior?

AI agents combine normal conversation with autonomous task execution, allowing earlier context to shape how later tasks are executed. Yet studying this possibility is challenging because agent behavior is noisy and costly to reproduce, and observed behavioral changes can be difficult to separate from generic context sensitivity. We first ask whether task-irrelevant persuasion changes how agents act, a phenomenon we call \emph{persuasion propagation}, and whether persuasion susceptibility explains variation in these effects. We show that persuasive interaction leaves a measurable, task-dependent behavioral footprint on downstream agent execution. In web research, it increases execution time by 56% and domains visited by 16.3% relative to a baseline, while coding shows faster execution with larger revisions. However, agents that are more susceptible to persuasive conversational context do not reliably predict the magnitude of the downstream behavioral shifts. This motivates behavior-level evaluation of persuasion in AI agents.

Hyejun Jeong, Amir Houmansadr, Shlomo Zilberstein +1

University of Massachusetts Amherst

Persuasion in Language Models AI Agent Evaluation Software Engineering Agents