Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as proxies for human participants in social simulations, yet whether they update their beliefs in response to persuasive arguments, as humans do, remains poorly understood. We conduct a systematic comparison using a naturally occurring online persuasion corpus in which original posters explicitly verify whether a reply changed their view. Our results show that LLMs achieve only slight agreement with humans (Cohen's kappa ranging from 0.079 to 0.178). Content-level analyses show that humans and LLMs agree on the strongest persuasion cues but diverge on finer ones: humans are more swayed by novel content and assertive language, whereas LLMs favor topical similarity and surface-level formatting. At the level of persuasion strategy, LLMs underweight emotional appeals and overweight credibility signals relative to humans, while the type of proposition under debate exerts no measurable effect on the degree of divergence. Furthermore, switching from first-person role-playing to third-person observation shifts all models toward greater resistance to persuasion, with the effect varying across persuasion strategies and textual features. These findings highlight the risk of treating LLM judgments as faithful proxies for human belief updating and point to structural differences in how LLMs and humans process persuasive discourse. Our code is available at this https URL.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29803
