Do Influence Tactics Matter? Investigating Prompt Framing Effects in LLM Code Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11513v1
• Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2026 23:57:06 GMT
• Title: Do Influence Tactics Matter? Investigating Prompt Framing Effects in LLM Code Generation
• Abstract summary: This study investigates whether different psychology-based communication strategies that humans use to persuade or motivate others can lead to more effective prompt framing.<n>We operationalized eight influence tactics (like rational persuasion, ingratiation, and exchange) into reproducible prompt templates.<n>We assessed the resulting code output on four key software quality dimensions: functional correctness, quality, maintainability, and security.
• Score: 2.900536834599724
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into software engineering workflows, helping developers write, debug, test, and maintain code. While prompt wording and structure are known to influence model performance, the impact of psychologically inspired prompt framings remains unexplored. This study investigates whether different psychology-based communication strategies that humans use to persuade or motivate others can lead to more effective prompt framing, which may, in turn, affect LLM behaviour in coding tasks. Drawing on Yukl & Falbe's well-known taxonomy, we operationalized eight influence tactics (like rational persuasion, ingratiation, and exchange) into reproducible prompt templates. These prompt templates were evaluated across five leading open-weight LLMs using two widely adopted benchmarks: LiveCodeBench and SWE-bench Verified. We assessed the resulting code output on four key software quality dimensions: functional correctness, quality, maintainability, and security. Our results show that certain influence-induced prompt framings, particularly those emphasizing urgency, were associated with reduced correctness and security. This work presents the first large-scale empirical study of influence-induced prompt framing in software engineering tasks, offering insights into how linguistic cues may shape LLM outputs. We conclude with practical insights for designing transparent and interpretable human-AI interactions in code generation.

Related papers

• Beyond the Traceback: Using LLMs for Adaptive Explanations of Programming Errors [52.619793817715326]
  We present a multi-stage crowdsourced study evaluating skill-targeted, LLM-generated Python error messages.<n>We show that while LLM-rewritten messages significantly improved subjective evaluations, these perceived gains did not translate into statistically significant improvements in objective debug performance.<n>This highlights a critical human-AI complementarity gap: explanations that feel better to users do not necessarily make them more effective debuggers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T09:14:28Z)
• Not All Tokens Matter: Data-Centric Optimization for Efficient Code Summarization [46.365359894614706]
  We evaluate how system prompts affect ILMs and CLMs in code generation tasks.<n>Our evaluation framework, spanning 120 model configurations, reveals that the influence of system prompts increases with model scale.<n>Java shows greater sensitivity to system prompt variations than Python.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T00:45:28Z)
• A Taxonomy of Prompt Defects in LLM Systems [13.177777446130712]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become key components of modern software.<n>Small mistakes can cascade into unreliable, insecure, or inefficient behavior.<n>This paper presents the first systematic survey and taxonomy of prompt defects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-17T20:11:22Z)
• What You See Is Not Always What You Get: An Empirical Study of Code Comprehension by Large Language Models [0.5735035463793009]
  We investigate the vulnerability of large language models (LLMs) to imperceptible attacks, where hidden character manipulation in source code misleads LLMs' behaviour while remaining undetectable to human reviewers.<n>These attacks include coding reordering, invisible coding characters, code deletions, and code homoglyphs.<n>Our findings confirm the susceptibility of LLMs to imperceptible coding character attacks, while different LLMs present different negative correlations between perturbation magnitude and performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-11T04:52:41Z)
• Studying and Benchmarking Large Language Models For Log Level Suggestion [49.176736212364496]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become a focal point of research across various domains. This paper investigates the impact of characteristics and learning paradigms on the performance of 12 open-source LLMs in log level suggestion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-11T03:52:17Z)
• The Strong Pull of Prior Knowledge in Large Language Models and Its Impact on Emotion Recognition [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLM) We show that LLMs have strong yet inconsistent priors in emotion recognition that ossify their predictions. Our results suggest that caution is needed when using ICL with larger LLMs for affect-centered tasks outside their pre-training domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T19:07:32Z)
• Characterizing Truthfulness in Large Language Model Generations with Local Intrinsic Dimension [63.330262740414646]
  We study how to characterize and predict the truthfulness of texts generated from large language models (LLMs) We suggest investigating internal activations and quantifying LLM's truthfulness using the local intrinsic dimension (LID) of model activations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T04:56:21Z)
• Testing LLMs on Code Generation with Varying Levels of Prompt Specificity [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated unparalleled prowess in mimicking human-like text generation and processing. The potential to transform natural language prompts into executable code promises a major shift in software development practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T23:41:41Z)
• Accelerating LLaMA Inference by Enabling Intermediate Layer Decoding via Instruction Tuning with LITE [62.13435256279566]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance across a wide variety of natural language tasks. However, their large size makes their inference slow and computationally expensive. We show that it enables these layers to acquire 'good' generation ability without affecting the generation ability of the final layer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T04:07:58Z)
• From Language Modeling to Instruction Following: Understanding the Behavior Shift in LLMs after Instruction Tuning [63.63840740526497]
  We investigate how instruction tuning adjusts pre-trained models with a focus on intrinsic changes. The impact of instruction tuning is then studied by comparing the explanations derived from the pre-trained and instruction-tuned models. Our findings reveal three significant impacts of instruction tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-30T21:16:05Z)
• Improving Open Information Extraction with Large Language Models: A Study on Demonstration Uncertainty [52.72790059506241]
  Open Information Extraction (OIE) task aims at extracting structured facts from unstructured text. Despite the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT as a general task solver, they lag behind state-of-the-art (supervised) methods in OIE tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-07T01:35:24Z)
• Metacognitive Prompting Improves Understanding in Large Language Models [12.112914393948415]
  We introduce Metacognitive Prompting (MP), a strategy inspired by human introspective reasoning processes. We conduct experiments on four prevalent Large Language Models (LLMs) across ten natural language understanding (NLU) datasets. MP consistently outperforms existing prompting methods in both general and domain-specific NLU tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-10T05:10:17Z)
• CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing [139.77117915309023]
  CRITIC allows large language models to validate and amend their own outputs in a manner similar to human interaction with tools. Comprehensive evaluations involving free-form question answering, mathematical program synthesis, and toxicity reduction demonstrate that CRITIC consistently enhances the performance of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T15:19:44Z)

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.