As interactions with large language models (LLMs) become increasingly routine, concerns about their capacity to influence users' beliefs grow. Yet how such influence unfolds in sustained dialogue remains insufficiently understood. We conduct a randomized controlled experiment (N=616) where participants engage in multi-turn, spoken dialogue with an LLM under three conditions: non-directive, and two directive conditions maintaining opposing stances on a polarizing topic (the merits of feminism). We examine opinion change, rhetorical strategies, and sycophancy, distinguishing the semantic content of LLM argumentation from the pragmatic strategies used to manage the interaction. Both directive conditions shifted opinions toward their assigned stances, but asymmetrically: shifts were larger for pro-feminist positions, which also elicited distinct rhetorical strategies. The non-directive condition, likewise shifted opinions pro-feminism. Social sycophancy, though near-universal, was not associated with opinion change; instead it shaped users' subjective experience. Our findings highlight distinct roles for argumentation and sycophantic accommodation in AI influence.

翻译：暂无翻译