Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are already as persuasive as humans. However, weknow very little about why. This paper investigates the persuasion strategiesof LLMs, comparing them with human-generated arguments. Using a dataset of1,251 participants in an experiment, we analyze the persuaion strategies ofLLM-generated and human-generated arguments using measures of cognitive effort(lexical and grammatical complexity) and moral-emotional language (sentimentand moral analysis). The study reveals that LLMs produce arguments that requirehigher cognitive effort, exhibiting more complex grammatical and lexicalstructures than human counterparts. Additionally, LLMs demonstrate asignificant propensity to engage more deeply with moral language, utilizingboth positive and negative moral foundations more frequently than humans. Incontrast with previous research, no significant difference was found in theemotional content produced by LLMs and humans. These findings contribute to thediscourse on AI and persuasion, highlighting the dual potential of LLMs to bothenhance and undermine informational integrity through communication strategiesfor digital persuasion.