Large Language Models Persuade Without Planning Theory of Mind

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.17045v1
• Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2026 03:31:31 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models Persuade Without Planning Theory of Mind
• Authors: Jared Moore, Rasmus Overmark, Ned Cooper, Beba Cibralic, Nick Haber, Cameron R. Jones,
• Abstract summary: We develop a novel ToM task that requires an agent to persuade a target to choose one of three policy proposals by strategically revealing information.<n>Success depends on a persuader's sensitivity to a given target's knowledge states (what the target knows about the policies) and motivational states (how much the target values different outcomes)<n>We find that effective persuasion can occur without explicit ToM reasoning (e.g., through rhetorical strategies) and that LLMs excel at this form of persuasion.
• Score: 13.778268027658482
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: A growing body of work attempts to evaluate the theory of mind (ToM) abilities of humans and large language models (LLMs) using static, non-interactive question-and-answer benchmarks. However, theoretical work in the field suggests that first-personal interaction is a crucial part of ToM and that such predictive, spectatorial tasks may fail to evaluate it. We address this gap with a novel ToM task that requires an agent to persuade a target to choose one of three policy proposals by strategically revealing information. Success depends on a persuader's sensitivity to a given target's knowledge states (what the target knows about the policies) and motivational states (how much the target values different outcomes). We varied whether these states were Revealed to persuaders or Hidden, in which case persuaders had to inquire about or infer them. In Experiment 1, participants persuaded a bot programmed to make only rational inferences. LLMs excelled in the Revealed condition but performed below chance in the Hidden condition, suggesting difficulty with the multi-step planning required to elicit and use mental state information. Humans performed moderately well in both conditions, indicating an ability to engage such planning. In Experiment 2, where a human target role-played the bot, and in Experiment 3, where we measured whether human targets' real beliefs changed, LLMs outperformed human persuaders across all conditions. These results suggest that effective persuasion can occur without explicit ToM reasoning (e.g., through rhetorical strategies) and that LLMs excel at this form of persuasion. Overall, our results caution against attributing human-like ToM to LLMs while highlighting LLMs' potential to influence people's beliefs and behavior.

Related papers

• Beyond Survival: Evaluating LLMs in Social Deduction Games with Human-Aligned Strategies [54.08697738311866]
  Social deduction games like Werewolf combine language, reasoning, and strategy.<n>We curate a high-quality, human-verified multimodal Werewolf dataset containing over 100 hours of video, 32.4M utterance tokens, and 15 rule variants.<n>We propose a novel strategy-alignment evaluation that leverages the winning faction's strategies as ground truth in two stages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T13:33:30Z)
• Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts [79.1081247754018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks.<n>We propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions(CSQ) to quantify the likelihood of deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T14:46:35Z)
• Do Large Language Models Have a Planning Theory of Mind? Evidence from MindGames: a Multi-Step Persuasion Task [1.9998928079358735]
  We present MindGames: a novel planning theory of mind' (PToM) task.<n>We find that humans significantly outperform o1-preview (an LLM) at our PToM task.<n>These results suggest a significant gap between human-like social reasoning and Theory of Mind abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T03:15:27Z)
• 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)
• PersuasiveToM: A Benchmark for Evaluating Machine Theory of Mind in Persuasive Dialogues [27.231701486961917]
  We propose PersuasiveToM, a benchmark designed to evaluate the Theory of Mind abilities of Large Language Models.<n>Our framework contains two core tasks: ToM Reasoning and ToM Application.<n>Our aim with PersuasiveToM is to allow an effective evaluation of the ToM reasoning ability of LLMs with more focus on complex psychological activities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T13:04:04Z)
• 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)
• Can Language Models Recognize Convincing Arguments? [12.458437450959416]
  Large language models (LLMs) have raised concerns about their potential to create and propagate convincing narratives. We study their performance in detecting convincing arguments to gain insights into their persuasive capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-31T17:38:33Z)
• How FaR Are Large Language Models From Agents with Theory-of-Mind? [69.41586417697732]
  We propose a new evaluation paradigm for large language models (LLMs): Thinking for Doing (T4D) T4D requires models to connect inferences about others' mental states to actions in social scenarios. We introduce a zero-shot prompting framework, Foresee and Reflect (FaR), which provides a reasoning structure that encourages LLMs to anticipate future challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-04T06:47:58Z)
• Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate [85.3444184685235]
  We propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Our framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T15:25:45Z)
• Clever Hans or Neural Theory of Mind? Stress Testing Social Reasoning in Large Language Models [82.50173296858377]
  Many anecdotal examples were used to suggest newer large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and GPT-4 exhibit Neural Theory-of-Mind (N-ToM) We investigate the extent of LLMs' N-ToM through an extensive evaluation on 6 tasks and find that while LLMs exhibit certain N-ToM abilities, this behavior is far from being robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:14:31Z)

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.