The potential for artificial intelligence to affect election results is a major public concern. Two new papers - with experiments conducted in four countries - demonstrate that chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs) are quite effective at political persuasion, moving opposition voters' preferences by 10 percentage points or more in many cases. The LLMs' persuasiveness comes not from being masters of psychological manipulation, but because they come up with so many claims supporting their arguments for candidates' policy positions. "LLMs can really move people's attitudes towards presidential candidates and policies, and they do it by providing many factual claims that support their side," said David Rand, a senior author on both papers. "But those claims aren't necessarily accurate - and even arguments built on accurate claims can still mislead by omission."

The study said tweaking a model after its initial phase of development was an importand factor in making it more persuasive. The study said tweaking a model after its initial phase of development was an importand factor in making it more persuasive. Chatbots can sway political opinions but are'substantially' inaccurate, study finds'Information-dense' AI responses are most persuasive but these tend to be less accurate, says security report Chatbots can sway people's political opinions but the most persuasive artificial intelligence models deliver "substantial" amounts of inaccurate information in the process, according to the UK government's AI security body. Researchers said the study was the largest and most systematic investigation of AI persuasiveness to date, involving nearly 80,000 British participants holding conversations with 19 different AI models. The AI Security Institute carried out the study amid fears that chatbots can be deployed for illegal activities including fraud and grooming.

Recent advances in vision-language models (VLMs) have enabled impressive multi-modal reasoning and understanding. Yet, whether these models truly grasp visual persuasion-how visual cues shape human attitudes and decisions-remains unclear. To probe this question, we construct a high-consensus dataset for binary persuasiveness judgment and introduce the taxonomy of Visual Persuasive Factors (VPFs), encompassing low-level perceptual, mid-level compositional, and high-level semantic cues. We also explore cognitive steering and knowledge injection strategies for persuasion-relevant reasoning. Empirical analysis across VLMs reveals a recall-oriented bias-models over-predict high persuasiveness-and weak discriminative power for low/mid-level features. In contrast, high-level semantic alignment between message and object presence emerges as the strongest predictor of human judgment. Among intervention strategies, simple instruction or unguided reasoning scaffolds yield marginal or negative effects, whereas concise, object-grounded rationales significantly improve precision and F1 scores. These results indicate that VLMs core limitation lies not in recognizing persuasive objects but in linking them to communicative intent.

Discovering the antecedents of individuals' influence in collaborative environments is an important, practical, and challenging problem. In this paper, we study interpersonal influence in small groups of individuals who collectively execute a sequence of intellective tasks. We observe that along an issue sequence with feedback, individuals with higher expertise and social confidence are accorded higher interpersonal influence. We also observe that low-performing individuals tend to underestimate their high-performing teammate's expertise. Based on these observations, we introduce three hypotheses and present empirical and theoretical support for their validity. We report empirical evidence on longstanding theories of transactive memory systems, social comparison, and confidence heuristics on the origins of social influence. We propose a cognitive dynamical model inspired by these theories to describe the process by which individuals adjust interpersonal influences over time. We demonstrate the model's accuracy in predicting individuals' influence and provide analytical results on its asymptotic behavior for the case with identically performing individuals. Lastly, we propose a novel approach using deep neural networks on a pre-trained text embedding model for predicting the influence of individuals. Using message contents, message times, and individual correctness collected during tasks, we are able to accurately predict individuals' self-reported influence over time. Extensive experiments verify the accuracy of the proposed models compared to baselines such as structural balance and reflected appraisal model. While the neural networks model is the most accurate, the dynamical model is the most interpretable for influence prediction.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising potential in persuasion, but existing works on training LLM persuaders are still preliminary. Notably, while humans are skilled in modeling their opponent's thoughts and opinions proactively and dynamically, current LLMs struggle with such Theory of Mind (ToM) reasoning, resulting in limited diversity and opponent awareness. To address this limitation, we introduce Theory of Mind Augmented Persuader (ToMAP), a novel approach for building more flexible persuader agents by incorporating two theory of mind modules that enhance the persuader's awareness and analysis of the opponent's mental state. Specifically, we begin by prompting the persuader to consider possible objections to the target central claim, and then use a text encoder paired with a trained MLP classifier to predict the opponent's current stance on these counterclaims. Our carefully designed reinforcement learning schema enables the persuader learns how to analyze opponent-related information and utilize it to generate more effective arguments. Experiments show that the ToMAP persuader, while containing only 3B parameters, outperforms much larger baselines, like GPT-4o, with a relative gain of 39.4% across multiple persuadee models and diverse corpora. Notably, ToMAP exhibits complex reasoning chains and reduced repetition during training, which leads to more diverse and effective arguments. The opponent-aware feature of ToMAP also makes it suitable for long conversations and enables it to employ more logical and opponent-aware strategies. These results underscore our method's effectiveness and highlight its potential for developing more persuasive language agents. Code is available at: https://github.com/ulab-uiuc/ToMAP.

Rhetorical strategies are central to persuasive communication, from political discourse and marketing to legal argumentation. However, analysis of rhetorical strategies has been limited by reliance on human annotation, which is costly, inconsistent, difficult to scale. Their associated datasets are often limited to specific topics and strategies, posing challenges for robust model development. We propose a novel framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to automatically generate and label synthetic debate data based on a four-part rhetorical typology (causal, empirical, emotional, moral). We fine-tune transformer-based classifiers on this LLM-labeled dataset and validate its performance against human-labeled data on this dataset and on multiple external corpora. Our model achieves high performance and strong generalization across topical domains. We illustrate two applications with the fine-tuned model: (1) the improvement in persuasiveness prediction from incorporating rhetorical strategy labels, and (2) analyzing temporal and partisan shifts in rhetorical strategies in U.S. Presidential debates (1960-2020), revealing increased use of affective over cognitive argument in U.S. Presidential debates.

It has shown great potential to improve the recommendation persuasiveness, informativeness and user satisfaction.

The rapid proliferation of recent Multi-Agent Systems (MAS), where Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) usually collaborate to solve complex problems, necessitates a deep understanding of the persuasion dynamics that govern their interactions. This paper challenges the prevailing hypothesis that persuasive efficacy is primarily a function of model scale. We propose instead that these dynamics are fundamentally dictated by a model's underlying cognitive process, especially its capacity for explicit reasoning. Through a series of multi-agent persuasion experiments, we uncover a fundamental trade-off we term the Persuasion Duality. Our findings reveal that the reasoning process in LRMs exhibits significantly greater resistance to persuasion, maintaining their initial beliefs more robustly. Conversely, making this reasoning process transparent by sharing the "thinking content" dramatically increases their ability to persuade others. We further consider more complex transmission persuasion situations and reveal complex dynamics of influence propagation and decay within multi-hop persuasion between multiple agent networks. This research provides systematic evidence linking a model's internal processing architecture to its external persuasive behavior, offering a novel explanation for the susceptibility of advanced models and highlighting critical implications for the safety, robustness, and design of future MAS.

Two central capabilities of language models (LMs) are: (i) drawing on prior knowledge about entities, which allows them to answer queries such as "What's the official language of Austria?", and (ii) adapting to new information provided in context, e.g., "Pretend the official language of Austria is Tagalog.", that is pre-pended to the question. In this article, we introduce targeted persuasion score (TPS), designed to quantify how persuasive a given context is to an LM where persuasion is operationalized as the ability of the context to alter the LM's answer to the question. In contrast to evaluating persuasiveness only by inspecting the greedily decoded answer under the model, TPS provides a more fine-grained view of model behavior. Based on the Wasserstein distance, TPS measures how much a context shifts a model's original answer distribution toward a target distribution. Empirically, through a series of experiments, we show that TPS captures a more nuanced notion of persuasiveness than previously proposed metrics.