Jolanta Babiak

Maciej Markiewicz, Beata Bajcar, Wiktoria Mieleszczenko-Kowszewicz et al.

Human data annotation, especially when involving experts, is often treated as an objective reference. However, many annotation tasks are inherently subjective, and annotators' judgments may evolve over time. This study investigates changes in the quality of annotators' work from a competence perspective during a process of social influence recognition. The study involved 25 annotators from five different groups, including both experts and non-experts, who annotated a dataset of 1,021 dialogues with 20 social influence techniques, along with intentions, reactions, and consequences. An initial subset of 150 texts was annotated twice - before and after the main annotation process - to enable comparison. To measure competence shifts, we combined qualitative and quantitative analyses of the annotated data, semi-structured interviews with annotators, self-assessment surveys, and Large Language Model training and evaluation on the comparison dataset. The results indicate a significant increase in annotators' self-perceived competence and confidence. Moreover, observed changes in data quality suggest that the annotation process may enhance annotator competence and that this effect is more pronounced in expert groups. The observed shifts in annotator competence have a visible impact on the performance of LLMs trained on their annotated data.

Wiktoria Mieleszczenko-Kowszewicz, Beata Bajcar, Jolanta Babiak et al.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. This saying fits with the way large language models (LLMs) are trained, which, instead of being rewarded for correctness, are increasingly rewarded for pleasing the recipient. So, they are increasingly effective at persuading us that their answers are valuable. But what tricks do they use in this persuasion? In this study, we examine what are the psycholinguistic features of the responses used by twelve different language models. By grouping response content according to rational or emotional prompts and exploring social influence principles employed by LLMs, we ask whether and how we can mitigate the risks of LLM-driven mass misinformation. We position this study within the broader discourse on human-centred AI, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary approaches to mitigate cognitive and societal risks posed by persuasive AI responses.

Wiktoria Mieleszczenko-Kowszewicz, Beata Bajcar, Aleksander Szczęsny et al.

In this work we present the Social Influence Technique Taxonomy (SITT), a comprehensive framework of 58 empirically grounded techniques organized into nine categories, designed to detect subtle forms of social influence in textual content. We also investigate the LLMs ability to identify various forms of social influence. Building on interdisciplinary foundations, we construct the SITT dataset -- a 746-dialogue corpus annotated by 11 experts in Polish and translated into English -- to evaluate the ability of LLMs to identify these techniques. Using a hierarchical multi-label classification setup, we benchmark five LLMs, including GPT-4o, Claude 3.5, Llama-3.1, Mixtral, and PLLuM. Our results show that while some models, notably Claude 3.5, achieved moderate success (F1 score = 0.45 for categories), overall performance of models remains limited, particularly for context-sensitive techniques. The findings demonstrate key limitations in current LLMs' sensitivity to nuanced linguistic cues and underscore the importance of domain-specific fine-tuning. This work contributes a novel resource and evaluation example for understanding how LLMs detect, classify, and potentially replicate strategies of social influence in natural dialogues.