mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Do Vision-Language Models Understand Visual Persuasiveness? A Diagnosis via Visual Persuasive Factors

arXiv 2511.17036 ↗First posted 21 Nov 2025cs.CL cs.CVcited by 0

On the map: Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models → VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

Visual persuasion uses images to shape cognition, emotion, and behavior, with its effects depending on both visual attributes and semantic context. Despite recent progress, it remains unclear whether Vision-Language Models (VLMs) understand visual persuasiveness. This motivates us to ask: can VLMs assess whether an image persuasively supports an intended message, which visual factors shape this judgment, and do they align with human judgments? Through empirical analyses on image-message pairs where human raters consistently agree on the persuasiveness judgment, we show that VLMs exhibit a recall-oriented bias: they over-predict images as persuasive while achieving high recall. We introduce Visual Persuasive Factors (VPFs), a taxonomy informed by cognitive psychology for quantifying visual cues that shape persuasive judgments. Our factor-level analysis reveals that VPFs distinguish human persuasiveness judgments, whereas VLMs only partially reproduce these patterns, often generating false positives by treating persuasion-relevant cues as sufficient evidence. Building on this insight, we evaluate VPF-guided interventions and find that properly framed VPF knowledge can improve performance, but merely specifying visual cues or adding step-by-step reasoning is insufficient. By analyzing model rationales at the level of functional reasoning steps, we further identify a central bottleneck in connecting object identification to semantic message alignment.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models. Builds on 11 of its 77 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Nov 2025.

Builds on

11 of 77 references.

References · 11

  1. 2024Grounded SAM: Assembling Open-World Models for Diverse Visual Taskscited by 929
  2. 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 530
  3. 2022Simple Open-Vocabulary Object Detection with Vision Transformerscited by 305
  4. 2019Persuasion for Good: Towards a Personalized Persuasive Dialogue System for Social Goodcited by 209
  5. 2024MetaMorph: Multimodal Understanding and Generation via Instruction Tuningcited by 206
  6. 2023Large Language Models as Analogical Reasonerscited by 107
  7. 2021DeepGaze IIE: Calibrated prediction in and out-of-domain for state-of-the-art saliency modelingcited by 56
  8. 2022MetaCLUE: Towards Comprehensive Visual Metaphors Researchcited by 28
  9. 2018Equal But Not The Same: Understanding the Implicit Relationship Between Persuasive Images and Textcited by 15
  10. 2025PVP: An Image Dataset for Personalized Visual Persuasion with Persuasion Strategies, Viewer Characteristics, and Persuasiveness Ratingscited by 4
  11. 2024Selective Vision is the Challenge for Visual Reasoning: A Benchmark for Visual Argument Understandingcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Can MLLMs Reason About Visual Persuasion? Evaluating the Efficacy and Faithfulness of Reasoning
  2. 2026Evaluating VLMs on Multimodal Aristotelian Persuasion Tasks
  3. 2026Visual Persuasion: What Influences Decisions of Vision-Language Models?
  4. 2024Benchmarking VLMs' Reasoning About Persuasive Atypical Images
  5. 2025Seeing is Believing? Evaluating Vision-Language Model Susceptibility in Agent-to-Agent Multimodal Persuasion
  6. 2025VIGNETTE: Socially Grounded Bias Evaluation for Vision-Language Models
  7. 2026Perceive, Refine, Reason: A Calibrated Pipeline for Measuring Indicators in Strategic Visual Communication on Social Media
  8. 2026Seeing Red, Thinking Bad: Color Bias in Vision Language Models