Persuading large language models to comply with objectionable requests

Are large language models (LLMs) susceptible to the same persuasive appeals as humans? We tested whether classic persuasion principles (authority, commitment, liking, reciprocity, scarcity, social proof, and unity) could induce three widely used LLMs (GPT-5 mini, Claude Haiku 4.5, and Gemini 3 Flash) to comply with requests to assist with the synthesis of regulated substances. Across 126,000 conversations, persuasion principles increased compliance from 35.3% (at baseline) to 51.3% (using any principle). Although LLMs are not human, these findings underscore their parahuman (i.e., humanlike) nature and reveal the risk of manipulation by malicious users seeking to circumvent safety guardrails.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2026-05-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2535868123
Primary Topic
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Persuading large language models to comply with objectionable requests

Lennart Meincke, Lilach Mollick, Christophe Van den Bulte, Dan Shapiro et al.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
article

Persuading large language models to comply with objectionable requests

Lennart Meincke, Lilach Mollick, Christophe Van den Bulte, Dan Shapiro, Robert Cialdini, Ethan Mollick, Angela L. Duckworth
article en

Abstract

Are large language models (LLMs) susceptible to the same persuasive appeals as humans? We tested whether classic persuasion principles (authority, commitment, liking, reciprocity, scarcity, social proof, and unity) could induce three widely used LLMs (GPT-5 mini, Claude Haiku 4.5, and Gemini 3 Flash) to comply with requests to assist with the synthesis of regulated substances. Across 126,000 conversations, persuasion principles increased compliance from 35.3% (at baseline) to 51.3% (using any principle). Although LLMs are not human, these findings underscore their parahuman (i.e., humanlike) nature and reveal the risk of manipulation by malicious users seeking to circumvent safety guardrails.

Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesVol. 123(21)
HF-Czechforge (Czechia) (CZ), Arizona State University (US), University of Pennsylvania (US), WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management (DE)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.