PaperActive

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

quality89

Updated 7 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026

paper_01M294G5JEXQ9ZT4TK82JAEKS4

Published: 11 Sept 2026; T1 · 7 h ago
arXiv: 2511.17036; T1 · 7 h ago
Category: cs.CL; T1 · 7 h ago

Abstract

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.

Authors 2

Gyuwon Park, Hyounghun Kim

Specification

Official page: arxiv.org/abs/2511.17036
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 7 h agohigh
Arxiv announce type: replace
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 7 h agohigh
arXiv id: 2511.17036
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 7 h agohigh
Categories: cs.CL, cs.CV
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 7 h agohigh
PDF: arxiv.org/pdf/2511.17036
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 7 h agohigh
Primary category: cs.CL
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 7 h agohigh
Published: 11 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 7 h agohigh

Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →

Provenance

Attributed facts

Source tiers

T19

Freshest observation

7 h ago

Conflicts

None

As of

Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.

Claim history

9 claims · 9 properties

Official pageofficial_url1

Claim history for Official page
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.17036	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Abstractabstract1

Claim history for Abstract
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
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.	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Arxiv announce typearxiv_announce_type1

Claim history for Arxiv announce type
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
replace	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

arXiv idarxiv_id1

Claim history for arXiv id
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
2511.17036	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Authorsauthors1

Claim history for Authors
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
Gyuwon Park, Hyounghun Kim	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Categoriescategories1

Claim history for Categories
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
cs.CL, cs.CV	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

PDFpdf_url1

Claim history for PDF
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.17036	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Primary categoryprimary_category1

Claim history for Primary category
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
cs.CL	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Publishedpublished_at1

Claim history for Published
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
11 Sept 2026	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →

Source documents
Source	Document	Type	Tier	Last observed	Snapshots
arXiv (Atom API + RSS)	rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.CL	feed	T1· Official	5 h ago	1

Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.