Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Spontaneous Persuasion: An Audit of Model Persuasiveness in Everyday Conversations

Nalin Poungpeth, Nicholas Clark, Tanu Mitra

Published

Apr 23, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

15% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Mixed

Signals refreshed

Apr 27, 2026

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Weak or implicit
Validate from full paper
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons. Users report consulting LLMs to inform major life decisions in relationships, medical settings, and when seeking professional advice. Prior work measures persuasion as intentional attempts at producing the most effective argument or convincing statement. This fails to capture everyday human-AI interactions in which users seek information or advice. To address this gap, we introduce "spontaneous persuasion," which characterizes the inexplicit use of persuasive strategies in everyday scenarios where persuasion is not necessarily warranted. We conduct an audit of five LLMs to uncover how frequently and through which techniques spontaneous persuasion appears in multi-turn conversations. To simulate response styles, we provide a user response taxonomy grounded in literature from psychology, communication, and linguistics. Furthermore, we compare the distribution of spontaneous persuasion produced by LLMs with human responses on the same topics, collected from Reddit. We find LLMs spontaneously persuade the user in virtually all conversations, heavily relying on information-based strategies such as appeals to logic or quantitative evidence. This was consistent across models and user response styles, but conversations concerning mental health saw higher rates of appraisal-based and emotion-based strategies. In comparison, human responses tended to invoke strategies that generate social influence, like negative emotion appeals and non-expert testimony. This difference may explain the effectiveness of LLM in persuading users, as well as the perception of models as objective and impartial.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons."

Rater Population

partial

Mixed

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"In comparison, human responses tended to invoke strategies that generate social influence, like negative emotion appeals and non-expert testimony."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Mixed
Expertise required
Medicine
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
None
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons.
  • Users report consulting LLMs to inform major life decisions in relationships, medical settings, and when seeking professional advice.
  • Prior work measures persuasion as intentional attempts at producing the most effective argument or convincing statement.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Contribution summary

  • Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons.
  • This fails to capture everyday human-AI interactions in which users seek information or advice.
  • To address this gap, we introduce "spontaneous persuasion," which characterizes the inexplicit use of persuasive strategies in everyday scenarios where persuasion is not necessarily warranted.

Why it matters for eval

  • Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons.
  • This fails to capture everyday human-AI interactions in which users seek information or advice.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.