Social Influence

With the rapid spread of news on social media, understanding the propagation of misinformation is becoming increasingly important. One factor that affects individuals' vulnerability to false information is their ideological predisposition. Despite the large number of agent-based models that focus on social influence as a driver of the spread of false claims, they often fail to explicitly integrate personal ideological biases into belief formation. In this work, we explore how misinformation spreads through the interaction between individuals' ideological biases and social influence. Our model accounts for both the strength of individuals' ideological biases and the extent to which a false claim aligns with their ideology. Social influence modifies the effects of ideological intensity and false claim alignment through network interactions. Notably, the influence of neighbours' ideological intensity on belief is strongly affected by how well those neighbours are connected to one another. These results highlight the importance of considering both network structure and personal ideological biases when modelling misinformation propagation.

Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation. Unlike individual human-AI decision-making, these indicators are embedded in information spread: users see both an AI prediction and earlier judgments shaped by the same AI, and their own judgments may then enter the public history. Yet how to analytically characterize this process remains under-explored. We therefore introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal. The resulting Gateway condition compares the evidence from the AI prediction with users' private impressions. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means. Crowd agreement may reflect accumulated independent human evidence, or repeated dependence on the same AI prediction. This creates a preservation-correction trade-off: stronger reliance on AI can preserve correct predictions, but can also lock in incorrect ones by blocking corrective private impressions. We calibrate the model using human-subject data on news veracity judgments. Although the AI outperforms human users, the average user weights it below her own impression but above several peer judgments, while individual users vary from discounting the AI to relying on it enough to cascade. Simulations show that over-reliance on a weak AI is especially harmful, and that diversifying AI signals across users can better keep the crowd informative. We conclude with implications for understanding human-AI interaction in information spread and designing misinformation interventions.

We introduce IO Factory, an AI-driven framework for simulating information and influence campaigns as fully integrated, traceable processes. The threat of digital manipulation now extends beyond persuasive text from individual language models to AI swarms, i.e., persistent groups of coordinated agents that adapt to platform feedback and disguise organized campaigns as ordinary social interaction. Because such campaigns cannot be identified from isolated messages alone, they must be analyzed across a continuous spectrum of planning, platform action, exposure, interpretation, measurement, and adaptation. IO Factory represents this process inside a controlled simulated platform, linking actor roles, platform actions, exposure records, structured model-based evaluations, and configured changes in the simulated population. We implement the architecture and evaluate it across configurations of up to 100,000 agents. The results show that IO Factory executes campaign timelines at scale and produces inspectable evidence of exposure and measured movement in configured belief variables. By recording the actors, objectives, action constraints, exposure paths, and measurement rules used in each run, IO Factory supports reproducible research and red-team analysis of coordinated influence.

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.

Social media affect financial markets, but public posts by financial media personas are voluntary disclosures. What is not disclosed is therefore usually unobserved. We address this measurement problem by conducting repeated, real-time interviews of "digital twins" built from monitored finfluencers' X accounts under a fixed protocol. The interviews recover stock-level public-persona belief proxies even when no public recommendation is made. Because the interviews are generated and archived before the relevant return windows, the design avoids the look-ahead bias that arises when LLMs are queried ex post. The evidence shows that information obtained from these digital-twin interviews predicts the cross section of large-cap stock returns in the expected direction. Repeated real-time interviews therefore show how selective disclosure can be turned into measurable panels of market views.

Conversational AI developed by geopolitical rivals reaches citizens worldwide, raising concerns that it could sway public opinion or be rejected as foreign propaganda, with consequences for democratic discourse and information sovereignty. Yet, whether an AI's perceived national origin shapes its persuasive power is unknown. In a preregistered randomized experiment, 403 adults from a nationally representative United States sample held a three-round debate with a chatbot introduced as either American ("DiscoveryAI") or Chinese ("ZhengheAI"), discussing a political or non-political topic. In all conditions, participants actually conversed with the same model (GPT-4o), instructed to argue against their initial position. We combined pre- and post-conversation self-reports of attitudes, trust, and collective narcissism with computational analyses of 1,209 participant turns, including LLM-coded stance and argumentative conduct, stance-sensitive embeddings, and keyword-masked emotion and toxicity classifiers. The conversations produced substantial attitude changes in every condition. Critically, the nationality label affected neither self-reported attitude change nor expressed stance, concessions, counterarguing, or affect, and equivalence tests and Bayes factors largely supported these null effects. The label's only reliable footprint was lower pre-conversation human-like trust in the Chinese model, whereas functionality trust was unaffected. Political topics slowed stance movement toward the AI's position, and collective narcissism predicted less attitude change regardless of origin, acting as a general barrier rather than an out-group filter. Users thus initially withhold social trust from a rival's AI yet still assimilate its arguments; origin labeling and transparency requirements alone may offer weak protection against foreign influence operations conducted through conversational AI.

Collective decision-making is ubiquitous across the living world and artificial societies. Individuals often choose an option based on intrinsic values of options. However, individual decision-making is also swayed by neighbors' choices, generating local social influence. Hence, an important question arises naturally, yet remains unanswered: when such social influence is integrated into the individual evaluation process for option choices, how does it affect collective decision-making outcomes in structured populations modeled by graphs. To address this, we consider a baseline model of binary options with social influence and assume that individuals not only evaluate the intrinsic values of options, but are also influenced by their neighbors' choices. We propose a perceived utility function integrating these two aspects for individual decision-making. By means of theoretical analysis, we first derive the average frequency of an option on static weighted connected graphs and present the mathematical condition under which this option prevails in the population. We find that the introduction of social influence can amplify the advantage of a superior option or compensate for the deficiency of an inferior one. We also reveal that the average degree of network exerts a dual effect on collective decision outcomes. Furthermore, we consider our evolutionary model on dynamic networks switching among distinct graph configurations. Our theoretical analysis shows that the evolutionary outcomes depend not only on the average degree of each network configuration, but also on its expected duration. We perform computer simulations to verify our theoretical predictions on static and dynamic networks.

State-backed influence operations are routinely measured as high-prevalence sources of hate'' and toxicity.'' We argue those rates rest on a measurement error: the detectors behind them are validated to catch a broader definition inclusive of hostility or divisiveness aimed at an out-group, and so over-attribute hate to content better described as partisan or geopolitical invective. Across 25.08M tweets from seven government-attributed campaigns in the Twitter Information Operations archive (8,275 accounts), we separate hate from the other forms of divisiveness. We first validate a two-prompt LLM-based detector, matching human labels at Cohen's $κ=0.82$, to identify the broader hostility; we then develop an auditable rule, agreeing with an expert at $κ=0.52$, to further classify this content (5,457 posts) into three sub-categories. About 50.1% are identity-based attacks on people, whereas 30.4% are partisan attacks and 19.5% invective against states and their foreign policy. Reporting all of it as hate therefore overstates hate roughly twofold; only 18.7% is both identity-based and dehumanizing or inciting. Six of seven campaigns sort into three regimes that a single ``hate'' rate flattens, namely identity hate (RU-op and IRA, both Russia-attributed), geopolitical invective (both Iran operations), and partisan divisiveness (both Venezuela operations). We call the shared product $manufactured divisiveness$. The line to separate these constructs itself remains unsettled: on the hardest cases three independent human experts agree only moderately (pairwise $κ=0.37$--$0.50$), and the best of nineteen LLM models tops out at $κ=0.601$ against the experts' majority. Our findings can help redefine the study of hate in the context of influence campaigns and broader online discourse.

Matching influencers (KOLs) to free-form, multi-part Thai marketing criteria is today served either by keyword search over structured profiles, which misses semantic fit, or by prompting frontier LLMs over every candidate, which is accurate but slow and expensive. We present InfluMatch, a low-cost three-stage cascade -- retrieval $\rightarrow$ rerank $\rightarrow$ reason -- built entirely from small open-weight models: dense retrieval returns 50 candidates, a 4B pointwise reranker scores each by the log-probability of a single Yes token and keeps 10, and a 4B reasoner grades the shortlist per criterion on a rubric with a Thai rationale. The cascade is designed for cost: reasoning over a filtered top-10 halves token spend versus reasoning over all 50 while scoring 14 points higher. End-to-end against human relevance labels on an 11-query set with all 50 candidates labeled, the full cascade reaches 94.1% P@5, versus a retrieval-only baseline near random; it matches the frontier model Kimi-K2.6 (91.8%) while emitting ${\sim}35\times$ fewer output tokens and serving a 50-KOL query in ${\sim}20$ s on one A100. Notably, the only fine-tuning that pays off is pairwise: a SimPO-tuned reranker matches the frontier baseline's best-pick accuracy (78.0 EM), whereas fine-tuning the reasoner on pointwise per-criterion labels improves offline scores yet degrades end-to-end ranking -- an inversion we trace to the design of the absolute labeling task -- leaving the untuned base model as the strongest deployed reasoner. The result is a deployable, explainable KOL search system at a small fraction of frontier serving cost.

LLM conformity is often used to describe cases where a model changes a correct answer toward a peer or group response. We show that most of this apparent conformity survives even after the peer is removed. The reason is a confound: standard conformity prompts mix two cues at once, the presence of a speaker and the repeated wrong answer itself. Existing benchmarks vary these cues together, so they cannot tell how much of the revision actually depends on the speaker. We introduce a no-source condition: the same asserted answer with the explicit speaker removed. Across six open-weight LLMs and seven QA and reasoning datasets, this condition alone causes harmful revision in $66.5\%$ of initially correct cases, compared with $10.3\%$ under a plain re-ask. The effect also remains when the repeated answer is paraphrased and when answer options are hidden in an open-ended setting. Source framing mainly modulates this floor: expert-panel framing raises it, while minimal person labels do not reliably raise it. When models flip, they are usually confidently wrong, and simple recalibration does not recover the original answer. Source attribution still matters, but it should be measured as an increment above this speaker-free floor. The methodological lesson is that conformity benchmarks should first measure what remains after the speaker is removed; without this step, benchmarks may mistake repeated text for social influence.

With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) platforms, users increasingly show cross-platform usage intentions. Existing research focuses on adoption and usage intentions in single-platform AIGC contexts. A theoretical gap still exists in studies on cross-platform usage. This paper constructs and verifies a three-stage multiple mediation model based on the personality trait-perception-behavioral response framework. The model integrates the optimum stimulation level (OSL) theory, complementarity theory, and perceived value theory, and it sets social influence and use experience as control variables to examine users' multi-homing intention. The results show that: (a) OSL significantly enhances users' perceived complementarity; (b) perceived complementarity positively affects perceived epistemic value; (c) perceived epistemic value significantly and positively predicts multi-homing intention; (d) OSL influences multi-homing intention through a chain mediation path of perceived complementarity and perceived epistemic value; and (e) social influence has a significant positive effect on multi-homing intention, while the effect of use experience is not significant.

Social influence dialogue changes user behavior by altering internal cognitive states. The central evaluation question is whether the user's beliefs, desires, intentions, and emotions measurably change over the course of conversation, a process-oriented criterion that neither surface-level text metrics (BLEU/ROUGE) nor single-score LLM judgments can capture. We propose the \textbf{Cog}nitive \textbf{W}orld \textbf{M}odel \textbf{(CogWM)}, an LLM-based user model that reframes multi-turn dialogue evaluation from what did the user say'' to how did the user's internal cognitive state evolves.'' CogWM jointly predicts BDI/E cognitive states and user utterances and serves as both a user simulator and an evaluation platform, using a three-tier evaluation framework that covers turn-level fidelity, trajectory-level state dynamics, and task-level composite scoring. Trained via our \textbf{S}ummarize-\textbf{a}nd-\textbf{A}llocate \textbf{(SaA)} annotation pipeline on 150,454 user-turn samples across four social influence scenarios, CogWM achieves 77.6% emotion accuracy (2.1$\times$ over GPT-5.5). In 3600 multi-agent discrimination trials, it distinguishes six commercial agents by their cognitive influence, with Llama-4-Scout ranking first (CTS +0.233). CogWM moves social influence dialogue evaluation from terminal judgment to process tracking. We have released our code\footnote{\scriptsize Code: https://github.com/lucianma05-create/CogWM} and models\footnote{Model: https://www.modelscope.cn/models/LucianMa/CogWM-14B}.

Coordinated foreign influence operations pose a growing threat to online platforms, but detecting state-linked troll activity and tracking its evolution remain challenging. This paper presents an explainable machine learning framework for theory-guided detection and longitudinal analysis of suspected trolling within Korean online news comment sections. Our hierarchical model classifies comments along three dimensions central to influence campaigns: foreign origin, moral-emotional framing, and target country. To support explainability, it also extracts brief span-level textual evidence that provides human-interpretable rationales. We apply the approach to 112M South Korean news comments authored by 4M users over nearly 20 years, identifying 23,998 accounts exhibiting behavior consistent with coordinated manipulation. Analyzing these accounts, we find that they predominantly rely on morally condemning rhetoric rather than direct promotion of foreign-aligned narratives; this rhetoric receives significantly higher user engagement. Among the highest-engagement comments, the moral condemnation most frequently targets domestic political figures (e.g., presidents or party leaders) on both the left and the right, potentially amplifying polarization. Our framework supports transparent platform governance through explainable, evidence-based moderation. These observed rhetorical and engagement patterns can inform how platforms and observatories prioritize defenses and intervene before harmful narrative-target combinations achieve widespread reach.

IMPACTeen is a dataset of textual social influence scenarios spanning interpersonal, media-based, and digital settings in an adolescent context. It contains 1,021 texts, 5,100 individual annotation records, and gold labels for social influence techniques, with each text annotated from five distinct perspectives: teenagers, parents, psychologists, communication experts, and teachers. The resource was constructed through constrained LLM generation, followed by a two-step human editing and validation phase aimed at ensuring youth-context realism. A multi-dimensional annotation covered influence presence, techniques, intentions, consequences, resistance, reactions, and annotation confidence. The dataset supports research on social influence detection, annotator disagreement, cross-lingual modeling, and the training and evaluation of language models. The dataset was created in Polish and is accompanied by a corresponding English version.

Majority illusion is an undesirable phenomenon in social networks in which agents incorrectly perceive a minority opinion as dominant. This can severely distort collective behavior and decision-making. We study the fundamental question of detecting whether a social network allows for a majority illusion. Formally, in the $q$-Majority Illusion problem, we ask whether there exists a binary labeling of agents in which at least a $q$-fraction of agents have the majority of neighbors with the minority label. We investigate how various structural properties of the underlying social network influence the tractability of this question, and provide a detailed map of its computational complexity.

Large language model (LLM) leaderboards rank AI models using standardized benchmarks and have become highly visible across computer science, despite known limitations in their reliability and robustness. Yet how they shape researchers' actual practice remains empirically uncharted. We address this gap through semi-structured interviews with eight researchers across four computer science subfields, analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. We find a near-universal paradox of pragmatic skepticism: while participants expressed deep distrust of leaderboard rankings, they continued to use them as rough decision-making aids. Peer networks, not leaderboards, emerged as the primary model selection mechanism, and arena-based (human-voting) leaderboards were consistently preferred over static benchmark leaderboards. Leaderboard influence varied sharply across subfields, revealing that disciplinary culture, not individual attitudes, mediates engagement; for instance, NLP researchers faced state-of-the-art comparison pressure while HCI and Systems/Privacy researchers reported none. Across these differences, however, participants converged on cost transparency as the most demanded missing feature (seven of eight). We translate these findings into concrete design recommendations that align evaluation infrastructure with how researchers actually use it, such as task-specific score breakdowns, cost integration, and voter-demographic disclosure.

The effectiveness of multi-agent LLM deliberation depends not only on the agents' individual predictions, but also on how they communicate and collaborate. We study this mechanism through the lens of Friedkin-Johnsen (FJ) opinion dynamics, a tractable model for analyzing stubbornness, influence, and opinion change in multi-agent systems that captures empirically observed deliberation patterns. We show that the FJ parameters are input-dependent, turning multi-agent deliberation into a mixture of experts. This perspective implies that multi-agent systems can outperform single agents and static ensembles when routing reflects agent competence. Since competence is latent in practice, we analyze how influence is established through observable proxies: agents' self-assessed confidence, their perceived confidence, and initial alignment with other agents' views.

The use of social robots in home environments is on the rise. This exploratory study applies regularization techniques (e.g., Lasso and Ridge regression) to investigate variables and identify new models of technology acceptance in the context of social robots. Within the original UTAUT2 framework, performance expectancy, social influence, and hedonic motivation emerged as the strongest and most consistent predictors of intention to use the technology. In addition, usability, trust, and competence were identified as promising variables in a model predicting intention to use.

As large language model (LLM)-based agents increasingly participate in online discourse, red-teaming their capacity to support political influence campaigns is critical for information integrity. In pursuit of this goal, we focus on locally deployed open-source LLMs, as opposed to frontier API-only models, given their superior alignment with the operational constraints of privacy-conscious malicious actors deployed in social media environments. We introduce an empirical red-teaming framework for measuring LLM Overton Windows (OWs), defined as the range of political opinions a model can reliably express on controversial topics, and for quantifying how simple natural-language jailbreaks expand that range. We evaluate more than 30 LLMs spanning 10 model families and five countries of origin. We find systematic asymmetries in political expressivity: open-source LLMs are typically more willing to generate left-leaning social media content, OWs tend to contract inversely to model size, and regional differences are substantial despite uneven representation in the open-source ecosystem. Jailbreak potency also varies sharply across model families, motivating a workflow for identifying effective combinations of jailbreak techniques. Taken together, our results establish a practical framework for auditing the political steerability of open-source LLMs and for helping future researchers design stronger countermeasures against LLM-enabled influence campaigns.

Human data annotation, especially when involving experts, is often treated as an objective reference. However, many annotation tasks are inherently subjective, and annotators' judgments may evolve over time. This study investigates changes in the quality of annotators' work from a competence perspective during a process of social influence recognition. The study involved 25 annotators from five different groups, including both experts and non-experts, who annotated a dataset of 1,021 dialogues with 20 social influence techniques, along with intentions, reactions, and consequences. An initial subset of 150 texts was annotated twice - before and after the main annotation process - to enable comparison. To measure competence shifts, we combined qualitative and quantitative analyses of the annotated data, semi-structured interviews with annotators, self-assessment surveys, and Large Language Model training and evaluation on the comparison dataset. The results indicate a significant increase in annotators' self-perceived competence and confidence. Moreover, observed changes in data quality suggest that the annotation process may enhance annotator competence and that this effect is more pronounced in expert groups. The observed shifts in annotator competence have a visible impact on the performance of LLMs trained on their annotated data.

AI-powered people search platforms are increasingly deployed for recruiting, sales prospecting, and professional networking, yet no standardized benchmark exists for their rigorous evaluation. We present PeopleSearchBench, an open-source benchmark comprising 119 multilingual queries across four scenarios: corporate recruiting, B2B sales prospecting, expert search, and influencer discovery. A central contribution is Criteria-Grounded Verification, an evaluation methodology that decomposes each query into explicit, independently checkable criteria and verifies each returned individual via live web search, producing factual relevance judgments rather than subjective LLM-as-judge scores (Cohen's kappa = 0.84 with human annotators). We evaluate four architecturally diverse platforms along three complementary dimensions---Relevance Precision, Effective Coverage, and Information Utility---and find that multi-source search agents significantly outperform single-domain systems, particularly in influencer discovery where the performance gap is largest. Platform rankings are robust across ablations on scoring thresholds, dimension weights, and judge models. All code, queries, and evaluation prompts are publicly available.

Social media influencers account for a growing share of marketing worldwide. We demonstrate the existence of a novel form of market failure in the advertising market: influencer cartels, where groups of influencers collude to increase their advertising revenue by inflating their engagement. Our theoretical model shows that influencer cartels can improve consumer welfare if they expand social media engagement to the target audience, or reduce welfare if they divert engagement to less relevant audiences. Drawing on the model's insights, we empirically examine influencer cartels using novel datasets and machine learning tools, and derive policy implications.