Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2025
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.26481 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866909878477389824 |
|---|---|
| author | Arlinghaus, Clarissa Sabrina Kenneweg, Tristan Hammer, Barbara Maier, Günter W. |
| author_facet | Arlinghaus, Clarissa Sabrina Kenneweg, Tristan Hammer, Barbara Maier, Günter W. |
| contents | Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are increasingly integrated into high-stakes decision-making, yet little is known about their susceptibility to social influence. We conducted three preregistered conformity experiments with GPT-4o in a hiring context. In a baseline study, GPT consistently favored the same candidate (Profile C), reported moderate expertise (M = 3.01) and high certainty (M = 3.89), and rarely changed its choice. In Study 1 (GPT + 8), GPT faced unanimous opposition from eight simulated partners and almost always conformed (99.9%), reporting lower certainty and significantly elevated self-reported informational and normative conformity (p < .001). In Study 2 (GPT + 1), GPT interacted with a single partner and still conformed in 40.2% of disagreement trials, reporting less certainty and more normative conformity. Across studies, results demonstrate that GPT does not act as an independent observer but adapts to perceived social consensus. These findings highlight risks of treating LLMs as neutral decision aids and underline the need to elicit AI judgments prior to exposing them to human opinions. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2510_26481 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Who Has The Final Say? Conformity Dynamics in ChatGPT's Selections Arlinghaus, Clarissa Sabrina Kenneweg, Tristan Hammer, Barbara Maier, Günter W. Artificial Intelligence Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are increasingly integrated into high-stakes decision-making, yet little is known about their susceptibility to social influence. We conducted three preregistered conformity experiments with GPT-4o in a hiring context. In a baseline study, GPT consistently favored the same candidate (Profile C), reported moderate expertise (M = 3.01) and high certainty (M = 3.89), and rarely changed its choice. In Study 1 (GPT + 8), GPT faced unanimous opposition from eight simulated partners and almost always conformed (99.9%), reporting lower certainty and significantly elevated self-reported informational and normative conformity (p < .001). In Study 2 (GPT + 1), GPT interacted with a single partner and still conformed in 40.2% of disagreement trials, reporting less certainty and more normative conformity. Across studies, results demonstrate that GPT does not act as an independent observer but adapts to perceived social consensus. These findings highlight risks of treating LLMs as neutral decision aids and underline the need to elicit AI judgments prior to exposing them to human opinions. |
| title | Who Has The Final Say? Conformity Dynamics in ChatGPT's Selections |
| topic | Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.26481 |