Persuasiveness and Bias in LLM: Investigating the Impact of Persuasiveness and Reinforcement of Bias in Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.15798v1
• Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 13:30:49 GMT
• Title: Persuasiveness and Bias in LLM: Investigating the Impact of Persuasiveness and Reinforcement of Bias in Language Models
• Authors: Saumya Roy,
• Abstract summary: This work examines how persuasion and bias interact in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>LLMs now generate convincing, human-like text and are widely used in content creation, decision support, and user interactions.<n>We test whether persona-based models can persuade with fact-based claims while also, unintentionally, promoting misinformation or biased narratives.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Warning: This research studies AI persuasion and bias amplification that could be misused; all experiments are for safety evaluation. Large Language Models (LLMs) now generate convincing, human-like text and are widely used in content creation, decision support, and user interactions. Yet the same systems can spread information or misinformation at scale and reflect social biases that arise from data, architecture, or training choices. This work examines how persuasion and bias interact in LLMs, focusing on how imperfect or skewed outputs affect persuasive impact. Specifically, we test whether persona-based models can persuade with fact-based claims while also, unintentionally, promoting misinformation or biased narratives. We introduce a convincer-skeptic framework: LLMs adopt personas to simulate realistic attitudes. Skeptic models serve as human proxies; we compare their beliefs before and after exposure to arguments from convincer models. Persuasion is quantified with Jensen-Shannon divergence over belief distributions. We then ask how much persuaded entities go on to reinforce and amplify biased beliefs across race, gender, and religion. Strong persuaders are further probed for bias using sycophantic adversarial prompts and judged with additional models. Our findings show both promise and risk. LLMs can shape narratives, adapt tone, and mirror audience values across domains such as psychology, marketing, and legal assistance. But the same capacity can be weaponized to automate misinformation or craft messages that exploit cognitive biases, reinforcing stereotypes and widening inequities. The core danger lies in misuse more than in occasional model mistakes. By measuring persuasive power and bias reinforcement, we argue for guardrails and policies that penalize deceptive use and support alignment, value-sensitive design, and trustworthy deployment.

Related papers

• The Facade of Truth: Uncovering and Mitigating LLM Susceptibility to Deceptive Evidence [49.94160400740222]
  We introduce MisBelief, a framework that generates misleading evidence via collaborative, multi-round interactions.<n>Using MisBelief, we generate 4,800 instances across three difficulty levels to evaluate 7 representative LLMs.<n>Results indicate that while models are robust to direct misinformation, they are highly sensitive to this refined evidence.<n>We propose Deceptive Intent Shielding (DIS), a governance mechanism that provides an early warning signal by inferring the deceptive intent behind evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T02:28:00Z)
• Emergent Persuasion: Will LLMs Persuade Without Being Prompted? [13.054065424962046]
  We study unprompted persuasion under two scenarios.<n>We show that steering towards traits, both related to persuasion and unrelated, does not reliably increase models' tendency to persuade unprompted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-20T21:09:47Z)
• MMPersuade: A Dataset and Evaluation Framework for Multimodal Persuasion [73.99171322670772]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are increasingly deployed in domains such as shopping, health, and news.<n> MMPersuade provides a unified framework for systematically studying multimodal persuasion dynamics in LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-26T17:39:21Z)
• Can You Trick the Grader? Adversarial Persuasion of LLM Judges [15.386741140145205]
  This study is the first to reveal that strategically embedded persuasive language can bias LLM judges when scoring mathematical reasoning tasks.<n>We formalize seven persuasion techniques (Majority, Consistency, Flattery, Reciprocity, Pity, Authority, Identity) and embed them into otherwise identical responses.<n>We find that persuasive language leads LLM judges to assign inflated scores to incorrect solutions, by up to 8% on average, with Consistency causing the most severe distortion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T09:45:02Z)
• It's the Thought that Counts: Evaluating the Attempts of Frontier LLMs to Persuade on Harmful Topics [5.418014947856176]
  We introduce an automated model to identify willingness to persuade and measure the frequency and context of persuasive attempts.<n>We find that many open and closed-weight models are frequently willing to attempt persuasion on harmful topics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T13:37:51Z)
• Fact-or-Fair: A Checklist for Behavioral Testing of AI Models on Fairness-Related Queries [85.909363478929]
  In this study, we focus on 19 real-world statistics collected from authoritative sources.<n>We develop a checklist comprising objective and subjective queries to analyze behavior of large language models.<n>We propose metrics to assess factuality and fairness, and formally prove the inherent trade-off between these two aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T10:54:11Z)
• 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)
• Bias in the Mirror: Are LLMs opinions robust to their own adversarial attacks ? [22.0383367888756]
  Large language models (LLMs) inherit biases from their training data and alignment processes, influencing their responses in subtle ways. We introduce a novel approach where two instances of an LLM engage in self-debate, arguing opposing viewpoints to persuade a neutral version of the model. We evaluate how firmly biases hold and whether models are susceptible to reinforcing misinformation or shifting to harmful viewpoints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T13:06:02Z)
• Measuring and Improving Persuasiveness of Large Language Models [12.134372070736596]
  We introduce PersuasionBench and PersuasionArena to measure the persuasiveness of generative models automatically. Our findings carry key implications for both model developers and policymakers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T16:36:35Z)
• "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust [51.542856739181474]
  We show how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T16:43:55Z)
• Self-Debiasing Large Language Models: Zero-Shot Recognition and Reduction of Stereotypes [73.12947922129261]
  We leverage the zero-shot capabilities of large language models to reduce stereotyping. We show that self-debiasing can significantly reduce the degree of stereotyping across nine different social groups. We hope this work opens inquiry into other zero-shot techniques for bias mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T01:40:11Z)
• Towards Understanding and Mitigating Social Biases in Language Models [107.82654101403264]
  Large-scale pretrained language models (LMs) can be potentially dangerous in manifesting undesirable representational biases. We propose steps towards mitigating social biases during text generation. Our empirical results and human evaluation demonstrate effectiveness in mitigating bias while retaining crucial contextual information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-24T17:52:43Z)

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.