Do LLMs Change Their Minds Like Humans? Diagnosing Human--LLM Divergence in Single-Turn Persuasion Judgments

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 https://github.com/tsinghua-fib-lab/LLM-belief-update-cmv.

LLMs for Survey Text Analysis - A Performance Comparison Between Humans and GPT-5 on Inductive Content Analysis

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support text analysis in qualitative research, yet evidence on their performance in inductive content analysis remains limited. This study compares human and LLM-based inductive coding of open-ended survey responses from 903 answers across six variables from a European PhD student survey. Five human coders performed inductive content analysis following a standardized coding scheme, while an LLM (GPT-5.4) conducted the same task using an established prompting procedure. Agreement between human and LLM outputs was assessed using the Adjusted Rand Index (ARI). Results showed an alignment between humans and the LLM, with ARI values of 0.61 for coding and 0.54 for theme generation. These values were close to the internal consistency of coding and theme results within humans (ARI = 0.68) and the LLM (ARI = 0.76). Agreement varied widely across variables, with low within-entity consistency consistently linked to low between-entity agreement, underscoring the role of data characteristics and individual performance in reliability. Overall, the findings suggest that LLMs can approximate human coding in this case-specific setting, particularly at the coding level, and may serve as a scalable support tool for inductive qualitative analysis.

How Do Large Language Models Judge Social Attraction? Evidence from Theory-Grounded Persona Ratings Across Multiple LLMs and Humans

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to perform subjective evaluations traditionally made by humans, yet their validity as social judges remains unclear. This paper examines whether LLMs can assess social attraction from theory-grounded persona profiles constructed from ten psychological and relational constructs and organized into three tiers: socially attractive, socially mixed, and socially unattractive. We examine LLM ratings in two studies and compare them with human judgments in a third study. In Study 1, 34 LLMs rated 12 profiles across three repeated runs. Although some models tended to give higher or lower ratings overall, they showed strong stability across runs, consistent three-tier ordering, and high agreement in relative profile ordering. Study 2 examined sensitivity to gender presentation using six matched name-and-pronoun profile pairs and a separate pronoun-only test with a gender-neutral name, finding no significant effects in either analysis. In Study 3, 198 human participants evaluated the six matched profiles from Study 2. Their ratings reproduced the three-tier structure and followed a profile ordering consistent with that of the LLMs. However, LLMs rated attractive profiles more positively and unattractive profiles more negatively than humans, while neither group showed a significant overall effect of gender presentation.

Agreement Is Not Quality: Blind Expert Verification of Human and LLM Qualitative Coding When Human Consensus Is Not Ground Truth

Evaluations of LLM-assisted qualitative coding almost universally measure model performance as agreement with human coders, a practice that presumes human coding is the standard to approximate. This study provides empirical evidence that the presumption fails in ways agreement metrics cannot detect. Five LLM systems and three trained human coders independently applied a 72-item hierarchical codebook to 2,560 educator messages from a K-12 AI platform. Beyond conventional agreement analysis, an independent domain expert judged 855 pairwise comparisons of code sets blind to source, treating human and machine sources symmetrically. The two evaluation approaches diverge in both directions. Human-LLM agreement (mean Jaccard 0.30) falls well below human-human agreement (0.52), which standard practice would read as inferior LLM coding, yet the blind verifier preferred human and LLM coding at indistinguishable rates (51.5% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.537), and a Bradley-Terry ranking placed two LLMs above two of three human coders. For several substantive codes, human consensus encoded shared bias that the verifier rejected in favor of the LLM interpretation. Agreement-based evaluation is therefore insufficient for automation decisions, and the study demonstrates a transferable verification protocol and a code-level division-of-labor framework.

FOXGLOVE: Understanding Goal-Oriented and Anchored Writing Feedback from Experts and LLMs on Argumentative Essays

While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate writing feedback, there remains no systematic comparison of LLM and expert feedback on the dimensions that writing research identifies as central to revision: goal-orientation, anchoring to specific sentences, and prioritization. We introduce FOXGLOVE, a dataset of 696 feedback comments written by trained writing instructors on 69 twelfth-grade argumentative essays, paired with 1,644 comments generated from four frontier LLMs under a shared protocol, totaling 2,340 comments. We provide expert quality ratings on a subset of both instructor and LLM comments. We find that instructors and LLMs distribute feedback similarly across goals and essay positions, yet instructors and models diverge on the specific sentences on which to provide feedback. Additionally, we find that models tend to write more complex feedback and use fewer questions than instructors. LLM feedback also receives higher ratings on most dimensions of quality, as rated by instructors, but much of this advantage appears to be attributable to lengthier comments. FOXGLOVE enables systematic comparison of where human and LLM feedback align, diverge, and differ.