Susceptibility to Influence of Large Language Models
Open accessAbstract
Two studies tested the hypothesis that a Large Language Model (LLM) can be used to model psychological change following exposure to influential input. The first study tested a generic mode of influence - the Illusory Truth Effect (ITE) - where earlier exposure to a statement (through, for example, rating its interest) boosts a later truthfulness test rating. Data was collected from 1000 human participants using an online experiment, and 1000 simulated participants using engineered prompts and LLM completion. 64 ratings per participant were collected, using all exposure-test combinations of the attributes: truth, interest, sentiment and importance. The results for human participants reconfirmed the ITE, and demonstrated an absence of effect for attributes other than truth, and when the same attribute is used for exposure and test. The same pattern of effects was found for LLM-simulated participants. The second study concerns a specific mode of influence - populist framing of news to increase its persuasion and political mobilization. Data from LLM-simulated participants was collected and compared to previously published data from a 15-country experiment on 7286 human participants. Several effects previously demonstrated from the human study were replicated by the simulated study, including effects that surprised the authors of the human study by contradicting their theoretical expectations (anti-immigrant framing of news decreases its persuasion and mobilization); but some significant relationships found in human data (modulation of the effectiveness of populist framing according to relative deprivation of the participant) were not present in the LLM data. Together the two studies support the view that LLMs have potential to act as models of the effect of influence.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AI-generated content can influence human attitudes, even if it is false or misleading.
“More recent studies indicate AI-generated content can influence human attitudes, even if it is false or misleading (9, 10).”
From Can Generative AI improve social science? (2024) · cites this paper as [9]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Can Generative AI improve social science?
Bail, C. A. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2314021121 · Cited by 369 · see citing works
AI for social science and social science of AI: A survey
Xu, R. F., Sun, Y., Ren, M., Guo, S., Pan, R., Lin, H., Sun, L., & Han, X. (2024) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103665 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback
Casper, S., Davies, X., Shi, C., Gilbert, T. K., Scheurer, J., Rando, J., Freedman, R., Korbak, T., Lindner, D., Freire, P., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.15217 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
“Language models can imitate the persuasive and manipulative tactics of humans [Bai, 2023, Vincent, 2023, Griffin et al., 2023].”
BackgroundCan Generative AI Improve Social Science?
Bail, C. A. (2023) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/rwtzs · Cited by 369 · see citing works
The Persuasive Power of Large Language Models
Breum, S. M., Egdal, D. V., Gram Mortensen, V., Møller, A. G., & Aiello, L. M. (2024) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31304 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Bridging the Gap: A Survey on Integrating (Human) Feedback for Natural Language Generation
Fernandes, P., Madaan, A., Liu, E., Farinhas, A., Martins, P. H., Bertsch, A., de Souza, J. G. C., Zhou, S., Wu, T., Neubig, G., et al. (2023) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00626 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Influence of External Information on Large Language Models Mirrors Social Cognitive Patterns
Bian, N., Lin, H., Liu, P., Lu, Y., Zhang, C.-P., He, B., Han, X., & Sun, L. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2024.3476030 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Might wargaming be another instance where “Anything you can do, AI can do better”?
Ellison, G., & Shepherd, A. (2025) · Journal of Decision Science and Optimization · doi:10.55578/jdso.2509.006 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Halucynacje chatbotów a prawda: główne nurty debaty i ich interpretacje
Kreft, J., Boguszewicz-Kreft, M., & Cyrek, B. (2024) · Roczniki Nauk Społecznych · doi:10.18290/rns2024.0009 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Griffin, L. D., Kleinberg, B., Mozes, M., Mai, K. T., Vau, M., Caldwell, M., & Marvor-Parker, A.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Tilburg University (NL)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2303.06074
- OpenAlex
- W4324108791
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Keywords
- large language models, susceptibility to influence, illusory truth effect, persuasive influence, news framing, political mobilization, relative deprivation, psychological change
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review