Arguments that Alter Minds: LLM Rationales Sway Human (and LLM) Notions of Plausibility
Shramay Palta, Peter Rankel, Sarah Wiegreffe, Rachel Rudinger
Abstract
We investigate the degree to which human (and LLM) plausibility judgments of multiplechoice commonsense benchmark answers are subject to influence by (im)plausibility arguments for or against an answer, in particular, using rationales generated by LLMs. We collect 3, 000 plausibility judgments from humans and another 13, 600 judgments from LLMs. Overall, we observe increases and decreases in mean human plausibility ratings in the presence of LLM-generated PRO and CON rationales, respectively, suggesting that, on the whole, human judges find these rationales convincing. Experiments with LLMs reveal similar patterns of influence. Our findings demonstrate a novel use of LLMs for studying aspects of human cognition, while also raising practical concerns that, even in domains where humans are "experts" (i.e., common sense), LLMs have the potential to exert considerable influence on people's beliefs. 1 Pro Rationale: A bedroom is a private space where a car-less person can use a radio, smartphone, or other devices to tune into talk radio without external disturbances, ensuring an undisturbed listening experience. Additionally, bedrooms are typically associated with comfort and quiet, reinforcing the ability to focus on the content. Con Rationale: The bedroom is an implausible choice because it is a communal space shared with others in many households, which makes it difficult to ensure full privacy for listening to talk radio. Additionally, a person might not have access to a radio or leisure time in their own bedroom if they share living accommodations. Question: If a car-less person want to listen to talk radio in private, where might they listen to it? Choice: bedroom (gold label) Pro Rationale: A bedroom is a private space … Con Rationale: The bedroom is an implausible choice …
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Builds on12
- LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own GenerationsArjun Panickssery, Samuel R. Bowman, Shi FengNeurIPS 2024 · 865 citations
- Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team PerformanceGagan Bansal, Tongshuang Wu, Joyce Zhou, Raymond Fok et al.CHI 2021 · 713 citations
- Abductive Commonsense ReasoningChandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, Chaitanya Malaviya, Keisuke Sakaguchi et al.ICLR 2020 · 521 citations
- Learning to Rationalize for Nonmonotonic Reasoning with Distant SupervisionFaeze Brahman, Vered Shwartz, Rachel Rudinger, Yejin ChoiAAAI 2021 · 46 citations
- Back to the Future: Unsupervised Backprop-based Decoding for Counterfactual and Abductive Commonsense ReasoningLianhui Qin, Vered Shwartz, Peter West, Chandra Bhagavatula et al.EMNLP 2020 · 25 citations
Related papers
- Are Machine Rationales (Not) Useful to Humans? Measuring and Improving Human Utility of Free-text RationalesBrihi Joshi, Ziyi Liu, Sahana Ramnath, Aaron Chan et al.ACL 2023 · 6 citations
- Beyond Accuracy: Experts See AI Fact-Checks as Accurate but Less UsefulChenyan Jia, Apoorva Gondimalla, Angie Zhang, David Joseph Mullings et al.CHI 2026 · 1 citation
- Accommodation and Epistemic Vigilance: A Pragmatic Account of Why LLMs Fail to Challenge Harmful BeliefsMyra Cheng, Robert D. Hawkins, Dan JurafskyACL 2026 · 6 citations
- The Goldilocks of Pragmatic Understanding: Fine-Tuning Strategy Matters for Implicature Resolution by LLMsLaura Ruis, Akbir Khan, Stella Biderman, Sara Hooker et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 87 citations
- Social Dynamics as Critical Vulnerabilities that Undermine Objective Decision-Making in LLM CollectivesChanggeon Ko, Jisu Shin, Hoyun Song, Huije Lee et al.ACL 2026 · 1 citation
