Human Decision-Making with Persuasive and Narrative LLM Explanations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23867v1
• Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 17:25:02 GMT
• Title: Human Decision-Making with Persuasive and Narrative LLM Explanations
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to aid and improve human decision-making in classification tasks.<n>Prior work has demonstrated that people generally find AI narrative explanations to be understandable, trustworthy, and convincing for changing beliefs and opinions.<n>Here we evaluate the impact of narrative explanations on objective human decision-making performance.
• Score: 11.224478276578745
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to aid and improve human decision-making in classification tasks, not only by providing fairly accurate predictions, but also in their ability to generate cogent narrative explanations of those predictions. Prior work has demonstrated that people generally find AI narrative explanations to be understandable, trustworthy, and convincing for changing beliefs and opinions; however, less is known about the impact of narrative explanations on objective human decision-making performance. Here we conduct a large-scale human behavioral experiment to evaluate decision-making performance with LLM-generated narrative explanations of varying persuasiveness. We found the degree of persuasiveness, or lack thereof, for LLM-based explanations did not meaningfully impact decision accuracy over a simple AI prediction alone, in agreement with typical results with explainable AI based on feature importance. We found evidence that narratives increased reliance on AI, but both when the AI prediction was correct and incorrect. Exploratory analyses also indicated that the more persuasive narratives may have had a detrimental effect on decision response times and the ability to discriminate between a correct and incorrect AI prediction. Overall, this work indicates that including narrative explanations with AI predictions may involve tradeoffs for decision-making performance, and more work is needed to determine how and when narrative explanations impact human decision-making.

Related papers

• The Persuasion Paradox: When LLM Explanations Fail to Improve Human-AI Team Performance [16.560095082937874]
  We identify a Persuasion Paradox: fluent explanations systematically increase user confidence and reliance on AI without reliably improving, and in some cases undermining, task accuracy.<n>Our findings demonstrate that commonly used subjective metrics such as trust, confidence, and perceived clarity are poor predictors of human-AI team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T20:23:37Z)
• XForecast: Evaluating Natural Language Explanations for Time Series Forecasting [72.57427992446698]
  Time series forecasting aids decision-making, especially for stakeholders who rely on accurate predictions. Traditional explainable AI (XAI) methods, which underline feature or temporal importance, often require expert knowledge. evaluating forecast NLEs is difficult due to the complex causal relationships in time series data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T05:16:39Z)
• Contrastive Explanations That Anticipate Human Misconceptions Can Improve Human Decision-Making Skills [24.04643864795939]
  People's decision-making abilities often fail to improve when they rely on AI for decision-support.<n>Most AI systems offer "unilateral" explanations that justify the AI's decision but do not account for users' thinking.<n>We introduce a framework for generating human-centered contrastive explanations that explain the difference between AI's choice and a predicted, likely human choice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T18:21:04Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Evaluating the Utility of Model Explanations for Model Development [54.23538543168767]
  We evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T23:13:23Z)
• In Search of Verifiability: Explanations Rarely Enable Complementary Performance in AI-Advised Decision Making [25.18203172421461]
  We argue explanations are only useful to the extent that they allow a human decision maker to verify the correctness of an AI's prediction. We also compare the objective of complementary performance with that of appropriate reliance, decomposing the latter into the notions of outcome-graded and strategy-graded reliance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-12T18:28:04Z)
• Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations [44.01143305912054]
  We study how decision-makers' intuition affects their use of AI predictions and explanations. Our results identify three types of intuition involved in reasoning about AI predictions and explanations. We use these pathways to explain why feature-based explanations did not improve participants' decision outcomes and increased their overreliance on AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-18T01:33:50Z)
• Human Interpretation of Saliency-based Explanation Over Text [65.29015910991261]
  We study saliency-based explanations over textual data. We find that people often mis-interpret the explanations. We propose a method to adjust saliencies based on model estimates of over- and under-perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T15:20:32Z)
• The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations [61.49776160925216]
  We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups--people with and without AI background--perceive different types of AI explanations. We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T17:32:04Z)
• Does Explainable Artificial Intelligence Improve Human Decision-Making? [17.18994675838646]
  We compare and evaluate objective human decision accuracy without AI (control), with an AI prediction (no explanation) and AI prediction with explanation. We find any kind of AI prediction tends to improve user decision accuracy, but no conclusive evidence that explainable AI has a meaningful impact. Our results indicate that, at least in some situations, the "why" information provided in explainable AI may not enhance user decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-19T15:46:13Z)

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.