# Successive Training Stages and Large Language Model Persuasion: Effects of Misalignment, Supervised Fine-Tuning, and Preference Optimization

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.09964 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.09964/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Human values and AI feedback alignment](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/human-values-and-ai-feedback-alignment/)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) can be tuned to influence human attitudes, yet the respective contributions of successive post-training stages remain un-clear. This study examines how three successive training stages affect LLM persuasiveness: (1) misalignment through supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on conspiracy data, (2) additional persuasive SFT on argumentative data, and (3) Identity Preference Optimization (IPO), a preference-optimization method. A total of 835 participants recruited on Prolific were randomly assigned to five between-subject conditions (neutral text, conspiracy-trained model, persuasion-trained model, preference-optimized model, and GPT-4) and were exposed to texts on 10 divisive political issues, personalized from their individual profiles in all model conditions. Attitude change was measured as the difference between pre- and post-exposure positions on continuous Likert scales and analyzed with an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). A significant condition x baseline-attitude interaction, F (4, 825) = 5.33, p < .001, indicated that training effects depended on participants' initial attitudes. Persuasive SFT produced greater attitude change than conspiracy training alone, d = 0.30, whereas IPO provided no additional benefit, d = 0.03, and GPT-4 did not differ from neutral text, d = --0.01. These results show that targeted supervised training on persuasive data increases LLM persuasiveness, whereas preference optimization yields no significant gains beyond it.