Communication Styles and Reader Preferences of LLM and Human Experts in Explaining Health Information
With the wide adoption of large language models (LLMs) in information assistance, it is essential to examine their alignment with human communication styles and values. We situate this study within the context of fact-checking health information, given the critical challenge of rectifying conceptions and building trust. Recent studies have explored the potential of LLM for health communication, but style differences between LLMs and human experts and associated reader perceptions remain under-explored. In this light, our study evaluates the communication styles of LLMs, focusing on how their explanations differ from those of humans in three core components of health communication: information, sender, and receiver. We compiled a dataset of 1498 health misinformation explanations from authoritative fact-checking organizations and generated LLM responses to inaccurate health information. Drawing from health communication theory, we evaluate communication styles across three key dimensions of information linguistic features, sender persuasive strategies, and receiver value alignments. We further assessed human perceptions through a blinded evaluation with 99 participants. Our findings reveal that LLM-generated articles showed significantly lower scores in persuasive strategies, certainty expressions, and alignment with social values and moral foundations. However, human evaluation demonstrated a strong preference for LLM content, with over 60% responses favoring LLM articles for clarity, completeness, and persuasiveness. Our results suggest that LLMs' structured approach to presenting information may be more effective at engaging readers despite scoring lower on traditional measures of quality in fact-checking and health communication.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
ArticlesFact CheckingMisinformationPersuasivenessSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
The Reader is the Metric: How Textual Features and Reader Profiles Explain Conflicting Evaluations of AI Creative Writing
Recent studies comparing AI-generated and human-authored literary texts have produced conflicting results: some suggest AI already surpasses human quality, while others argue it still falls short. We start from the hypot…
Feature ImportanceSentenceText GenerationPMMT: Preference Alignment in Multilingual Machine Translation via LLM Distillation
Translation is important for cross-language communication, and many efforts have been made to improve its accuracy. However, less investment is conducted in aligning translations with human preferences, such as translati…
Machine TranslationTranslationFigCaps-HF: A Figure-to-Caption Generative Framework and Benchmark with Human Feedback
Captions are crucial for understanding scientific visualizations and documents. Existing captioning methods for scientific figures rely on figure-caption pairs extracted from documents for training, many of which fall sh…
Caption GenerationFont Style Interpolation with Diffusion Models
Fonts have huge variations in their styles and give readers different impressions. Therefore, generating new fonts is worthy of giving new impressions to readers. In this paper, we employ diffusion models to generate new…
AI translation of literary texts is "fine", but readers still prefer human translations
AI translation of literary works is increasingly common. While the content may be rendered adequately, we do not know enough about how readers experience it in terms of immersiveness and literary effect-aspects poorly ca…
Machine Translation