LLMs can persuade only psychologically susceptible humans on societal issues, via trust in AI and emotional appeals, amid logical fallacies

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.16935v1
• Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:39:22 GMT
• Title: LLMs can persuade only psychologically susceptible humans on societal issues, via trust in AI and emotional appeals, amid logical fallacies
• Abstract summary: We introduce Talk2AI, a longitudinal framework quantifying psycho-social, reasoning and affective dimensions of LLMs' persuasiveness.<n>In a four-way longitudinal setup, Talk2AI's 770 participants engaged in structured conversations with one of four leading LLMs on topics like climate change, social media misinformation, and math anxiety.<n>After each wave, participants reported conviction in their initial topic stance, perceived opinion change, LLM's perceived humanness, a self-donation to the topic and a textual explanation.
• Score: 4.786506246150904
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Scarce longitudinal evidence examines LLMs' persuasiveness and humanness along time-evolving psychological frameworks. We introduce Talk2AI, a longitudinal framework quantifying psycho-social, reasoning and affective dimensions of LLMs' persuasiveness about polarizing societal topics. In a four-way longitudinal setup, Talk2AI's 770 participants engaged in structured conversations with one of four leading LLMs on topics like climate change, social media misinformation, and math anxiety. This produced 3,080 conversations over 60,000 turns. After each wave, participants reported conviction in their initial topic stance, perceived opinion change, LLM's perceived humanness, a self-donation to the topic and a textual explanation. Feedback time series showed longitudinal inertia in convictions, indicating some human anchoring to initial opinions even after repeated exposure to AI-generated arguments. Interestingly, NLP analyses revealed that both humans and LLMs relied on fallacious reasoning in 1 conversational quip every 6, countering the ``LLMs as superior systems" stereotype behind LLMs' cognitive surrender. LLMs' perceived humanness was most learnable from sociodemographic, psychological and engagement features ($R^2=0.44$), followed by opinion change ($R^2=0.34$), conviction ($R^2=0.26$) and personal endowment ($R^2=0.24$). Crucially, explainable AI (XAI) indicated: (i) the presence of individuals more susceptible to LLM-based opinion changes; (ii) psychological susceptibility to LLM-convincing consisted of having more trust in LLMs, being more agreeable and extraverted and with a higher need for cognition. A multiverse approach with mixed-effects models confirmed XAI results, alongside strong individual differences. Talk2AI provides a grounded framework and evidence for detecting how GenAI can influence human opinions via multiple psycho-social pathways in AI-human digital platforms.

Related papers

• Do LLMs Change Their Minds Like Humans? Diagnosing Human--LLM Divergence in Single-Turn Persuasion Judgments [10.717755637740948]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as proxies for human participants in social simulations.<n>We conduct a systematic comparison using a naturally occurring online persuasion corpus.<n>Our results show that LLMs achieve only slight agreement with humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-30T14:08:06Z)
• Social Simulations with Large Language Model Risk Utopian Illusion [61.358959720048354]
  We introduce a systematic framework for analyzing large language models' behavior in social simulation.<n>Our approach simulates multi-agent interactions through chatroom-style conversations and analyzes them across five linguistic dimensions.<n>Our findings reveal that LLMs do not faithfully reproduce genuine human behavior but instead reflect overly idealized versions of it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T06:08:41Z)
• Beyond Hallucinations: The Illusion of Understanding in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are becoming deeply embedded in human communication and decision-making.<n>They inherit the ambiguity, bias, and lack of direct access to truth inherent in language itself.<n>This paper argues that LLMs operationalize System 1 cognition at scale: fast, associative, and persuasive, but without reflection or falsification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T13:19:44Z)
• Artificial Intelligence and Civil Discourse: How LLMs Moderate Climate Change Conversations [2.570568710751949]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into online platforms and digital communication spaces.<n>This study examines how LLMs naturally moderate climate change conversations through their distinct communicative behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T03:32:47Z)
• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• Measurement of LLM's Philosophies of Human Nature [113.47929131143766]
  We design the standardized psychological scale specifically targeting large language models (LLM)<n>We show that current LLMs exhibit a systemic lack of trust in humans.<n>We propose a mental loop learning framework, which enables LLM to continuously optimize its value system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-03T06:22:19Z)
• ToMATO: Verbalizing the Mental States of Role-Playing LLMs for Benchmarking Theory of Mind [25.524355451378593]
  ToMATO is a new ToM benchmark formulated as multiple-choice QA over conversations.<n>We capture both first- and second-order mental states across five categories: belief, intention, desire, emotion, and knowledge.<n>ToMATO consists of 5.4k questions, 753 conversations, and 15 personality trait patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-15T14:47:02Z)
• Large Language Models are as persuasive as humans, but how? About the cognitive effort and moral-emotional language of LLM arguments [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are already as persuasive as humans. This paper investigates the persuasion strategies of LLMs, comparing them with human-generated arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-14T19:01:20Z)
• How Johnny Can Persuade LLMs to Jailbreak Them: Rethinking Persuasion to Challenge AI Safety by Humanizing LLMs [66.05593434288625]
  This paper introduces a new perspective to jailbreak large language models (LLMs) as human-like communicators. We apply a persuasion taxonomy derived from decades of social science research to generate persuasive adversarial prompts (PAP) to jailbreak LLMs. PAP consistently achieves an attack success rate of over $92%$ on Llama 2-7b Chat, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 in $10$ trials. On the defense side, we explore various mechanisms against PAP and, found a significant gap in existing defenses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T16:13:24Z)
• MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks [49.60689355674541]
  A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments. We test whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with human participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:57:32Z)
• Avalon's Game of Thoughts: Battle Against Deception through Recursive Contemplation [80.126717170151]
  This study utilizes the intricate Avalon game as a testbed to explore LLMs' potential in deceptive environments. We introduce a novel framework, Recursive Contemplation (ReCon), to enhance LLMs' ability to identify and counteract deceptive information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T16:27:36Z)
• Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBench [83.41621219298489]
  We evaluate Large Language Models' (LLMs) anthropomorphic capabilities using the emotion appraisal theory from psychology. We collect a dataset containing over 400 situations that have proven effective in eliciting the eight emotions central to our study. We conduct a human evaluation involving more than 1,200 subjects worldwide.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T15:18:30Z)
• Revisiting the Reliability of Psychological Scales on Large Language Models [62.57981196992073]
  This study aims to determine the reliability of applying personality assessments to Large Language Models. Analysis of 2,500 settings per model, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini-Pro, and LLaMA-3.1, reveals that various LLMs show consistency in responses to the Big Five Inventory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T15:03:28Z)

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.