Communication Styles and Reader Preferences of LLM and Human Experts in Explaining Health Information

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08143v1
• Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 00:32:38 GMT
• Title: Communication Styles and Reader Preferences of LLM and Human Experts in Explaining Health Information
• Authors: Jiawei Zhou, Kritika Venkatachalam, Minje Choi, Koustuv Saha, Munmun De Choudhury,
• Abstract summary: Our study evaluates the communication styles of large language models (LLMs)<n>We compiled a dataset of 1498 health misinformation explanations from authoritative fact-checking organizations.<n>Our results suggest that LLMs' structured approach to presenting information may be more effective at engaging readers.
• Score: 20.955508468328603
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: With the wide adoption of large language models (LLMs) in information assistance, it is essential to examine their alignment with human communication styles and values. We situate this study within the context of fact-checking health information, given the critical challenge of rectifying conceptions and building trust. Recent studies have explored the potential of LLM for health communication, but style differences between LLMs and human experts and associated reader perceptions remain under-explored. In this light, our study evaluates the communication styles of LLMs, focusing on how their explanations differ from those of humans in three core components of health communication: information, sender, and receiver. We compiled a dataset of 1498 health misinformation explanations from authoritative fact-checking organizations and generated LLM responses to inaccurate health information. Drawing from health communication theory, we evaluate communication styles across three key dimensions of information linguistic features, sender persuasive strategies, and receiver value alignments. We further assessed human perceptions through a blinded evaluation with 99 participants. Our findings reveal that LLM-generated articles showed significantly lower scores in persuasive strategies, certainty expressions, and alignment with social values and moral foundations. However, human evaluation demonstrated a strong preference for LLM content, with over 60% responses favoring LLM articles for clarity, completeness, and persuasiveness. Our results suggest that LLMs' structured approach to presenting information may be more effective at engaging readers despite scoring lower on traditional measures of quality in fact-checking and health communication.

Related papers

• LLM or Human? Perceptions of Trust and Information Quality in Research Summaries [4.14522715241162]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate and edit scientific abstracts.<n>Despite growing adoption, little is known about how readers perceive LLM-generated summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T00:53:38Z)
• A word association network methodology for evaluating implicit biases in LLMs compared to humans [0.0]
  We present a novel word association network methodology for evaluating implicit biases in Large language models (LLMs)<n>Our method taps into the implicit relational structures encoded in LLMs, providing both quantitative and qualitative assessments of bias.<n>To demonstrate the utility of our methodology, we apply it to both humans and several widely used LLMs to investigate social biases related to gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and political party.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T15:03:18Z)
• Evaluating & Reducing Deceptive Dialogue From Language Models with Multi-turn RL [64.3268313484078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with millions of people worldwide in applications such as customer support, education and healthcare.<n>Their ability to produce deceptive outputs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, poses significant safety concerns.<n>We investigate the extent to which LLMs engage in deception within dialogue, and propose the belief misalignment metric to quantify deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:29:36Z)
• Are LLM-generated plain language summaries truly understandable? A large-scale crowdsourced evaluation [7.867257950096845]
  Plain language summaries (PLSs) are essential for facilitating effective communication between clinicians and patients.<n>Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown promise in automating PLS generation, but their effectiveness in supporting health information comprehension remains unclear.<n>We conducted a large-scale crowdsourced evaluation of LLM-generated PLSs using Amazon Mechanical Turk with 150 participants.<n>Our findings indicate that while LLMs can generate PLSs that appear indistinguishable from human-written ones in subjective evaluations, human-written PLSs lead to significantly better comprehension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T15:31:17Z)
• The Art of Audience Engagement: LLM-Based Thin-Slicing of Scientific Talks [0.0]
  We show that brief excerpts (thin slices) reliably predict overall presentation quality.<n>Using a novel corpus of over one hundred real-life science talks, we employ Large Language Models (LLMs) to evaluate transcripts of full presentations.<n>Our results demonstrate that LLM-based evaluations align closely with human ratings, proving their validity, reliability, and efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T00:08:13Z)
• Fact or Guesswork? Evaluating Large Language Models' Medical Knowledge with Structured One-Hop Judgments [108.55277188617035]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted in various downstream task domains, but their abilities to directly recall and apply factual medical knowledge remains under-explored.<n>We introduce the Medical Knowledge Judgment dataset (MKJ), a dataset derived from the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS), a comprehensive repository of standardized vocabularies and knowledge graphs.<n>Through a binary classification framework, MKJ evaluates LLMs' grasp of fundamental medical facts by having them assess the validity of concise, one-hop statements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T05:27:51Z)
• Enhancing Patient-Centric Communication: Leveraging LLMs to Simulate Patient Perspectives [19.462374723301792]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in role-playing scenarios.<n>By mimicking human behavior, LLMs can anticipate responses based on concrete demographic or professional profiles.<n>We evaluate the effectiveness of LLMs in simulating individuals with diverse backgrounds and analyze the consistency of these simulated behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-12T22:49:32Z)
• NewsInterview: a Dataset and a Playground to Evaluate LLMs' Ground Gap via Informational Interviews [65.35458530702442]
  We focus on journalistic interviews, a domain rich in grounding communication and abundant in data. We curate a dataset of 40,000 two-person informational interviews from NPR and CNN. LLMs are significantly less likely than human interviewers to use acknowledgements and to pivot to higher-level questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T01:37:38Z)
• Persuasion with Large Language Models: a Survey [49.86930318312291]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new disruptive possibilities for persuasive communication. In areas such as politics, marketing, public health, e-commerce, and charitable giving, such LLM Systems have already achieved human-level or even super-human persuasiveness. Our survey suggests that the current and future potential of LLM-based persuasion poses profound ethical and societal risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T10:05:52Z)
• Hate Personified: Investigating the role of LLMs in content moderation [64.26243779985393]
  For subjective tasks such as hate detection, where people perceive hate differently, the Large Language Model's (LLM) ability to represent diverse groups is unclear. By including additional context in prompts, we analyze LLM's sensitivity to geographical priming, persona attributes, and numerical information to assess how well the needs of various groups are reflected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T16:43:17Z)
• Rel-A.I.: An Interaction-Centered Approach To Measuring Human-LM Reliance [73.19687314438133]
  We study how reliance is affected by contextual features of an interaction. We find that contextual characteristics significantly affect human reliance behavior. Our results show that calibration and language quality alone are insufficient in evaluating the risks of human-LM interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T18:00:05Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models with Psychometrics [59.821829073478376]
  This paper offers a comprehensive benchmark for quantifying psychological constructs of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our work identifies five key psychological constructs -- personality, values, emotional intelligence, theory of mind, and self-efficacy -- assessed through a suite of 13 datasets.<n>We uncover significant discrepancies between LLMs' self-reported traits and their response patterns in real-world scenarios, revealing complexities in their behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T16:09:08Z)
• Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspective [66.34066553400108]
  We conduct a rigorous evaluation of large language models' implicit bias towards certain demographics.<n>Inspired by psychometric principles, we propose three attack approaches, i.e., Disguise, Deception, and Teaching.<n>Our methods can elicit LLMs' inner bias more effectively than competitive baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T06:42:08Z)
• Better to Ask in English: Cross-Lingual Evaluation of Large Language Models for Healthcare Queries [31.82249599013959]
  Large language models (LLMs) are transforming the ways the general public accesses and consumes information. LLMs demonstrate impressive language understanding and generation proficiencies, but concerns regarding their safety remain paramount. It remains unclear how these LLMs perform in the context of non-English languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T20:02:40Z)
• A Survey of Large Language Models for Healthcare: from Data, Technology, and Applications to Accountability and Ethics [32.10937977924507]
  The utilization of large language models (LLMs) in the Healthcare domain has generated both excitement and concern.<n>This survey outlines the capabilities of the currently developed LLMs for Healthcare and explicates their development process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T13:15:23Z)
• Don't Ignore Dual Logic Ability of LLMs while Privatizing: A Data-Intensive Analysis in Medical Domain [19.46334739319516]
  We study how the dual logic ability of LLMs is affected during the privatization process in the medical domain. Our results indicate that incorporating general domain dual logic data into LLMs not only enhances LLMs' dual logic ability but also improves their accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-08T08:20:46Z)
• Aligning Large Language Models with Human: A Survey [53.6014921995006]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on extensive textual corpora have emerged as leading solutions for a broad array of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Despite their notable performance, these models are prone to certain limitations such as misunderstanding human instructions, generating potentially biased content, or factually incorrect information. This survey presents a comprehensive overview of these alignment technologies, including the following aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-24T17:44:58Z)
• Influence of External Information on Large Language Models Mirrors Social Cognitive Patterns [51.622612759892775]
  Social cognitive theory explains how people learn and acquire knowledge through observing others. Recent years have witnessed the rapid development of large language models (LLMs) LLMs, as AI agents, can observe external information, which shapes their cognition and behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-08T16:10:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.