Social preferences with unstable interactive reasoning: Large language models in economic trust games

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17053v1
• Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 14:45:59 GMT
• Title: Social preferences with unstable interactive reasoning: Large language models in economic trust games
• Authors: Ou Jiamin, Eikmans Emile, Buskens Vincent, Pankowska Paulina, Shan Yuli,
• Abstract summary: ChatGPT-4, Claude, and Bard were placed in economic trust games where players balance self-interest with trust and reciprocity.<n>Our study shows that LLMs deviate from pure self-interest and exhibit trust and reciprocity even without being prompted to adopt a specific persona.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in understanding human languages, this study explores how they translate this understanding into social exchange contexts that capture certain essences of real world human interactions. Three LLMs - ChatGPT-4, Claude, and Bard - were placed in economic trust games where players balance self-interest with trust and reciprocity, making decisions that reveal their social preferences and interactive reasoning abilities. Our study shows that LLMs deviate from pure self-interest and exhibit trust and reciprocity even without being prompted to adopt a specific persona. In the simplest one-shot interaction, LLMs emulated how human players place trust at the beginning of such a game. Larger human-machine divergences emerged in scenarios involving trust repayment or multi-round interactions, where decisions were influenced by both social preferences and interactive reasoning. LLMs responses varied significantly when prompted to adopt personas like selfish or unselfish players, with the impact outweighing differences between models or game types. Response of ChatGPT-4, in an unselfish or neutral persona, resembled the highest trust and reciprocity, surpassing humans, Claude, and Bard. Claude and Bard displayed trust and reciprocity levels that sometimes exceeded and sometimes fell below human choices. When given selfish personas, all LLMs showed lower trust and reciprocity than humans. Interactive reasoning to the actions of counterparts or changing game mechanics appeared to be random rather than stable, reproducible characteristics in the response of LLMs, though some improvements were observed when ChatGPT-4 responded in selfish or unselfish personas.

Related papers

• How large language models judge and influence human cooperation [82.07571393247476]
  We assess how state-of-the-art language models judge cooperative actions.<n>We observe a remarkable agreement in evaluating cooperation against good opponents.<n>We show that the differences revealed between models can significantly impact the prevalence of cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T09:14:42Z)
• Time to Talk: LLM Agents for Asynchronous Group Communication in Mafia Games [16.080044587384936]
  In social games, there is no inherent notion of turns; therefore, the decision of when to speak forms a crucial part of the participant's decision making.<n>We develop an adaptive asynchronous LLM-agent which, in addition to determining what to say, also decides when to say it.<n>Our analysis shows that the agent's behavior in deciding when to speak closely mirrors human patterns, although differences emerge in message content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:53:44Z)
• SocialEval: Evaluating Social Intelligence of Large Language Models [70.90981021629021]
  Social Intelligence (SI) equips humans with interpersonal abilities to behave wisely in navigating social interactions to achieve social goals.<n>This presents an operational evaluation paradigm: outcome-oriented goal achievement evaluation and process-oriented interpersonal ability evaluation.<n>We propose SocialEval, a script-based bilingual SI benchmark, integrating outcome- and process-oriented evaluation by manually crafting narrative scripts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-01T08:36:51Z)
• Humans expect rationality and cooperation from LLM opponents in strategic games [0.0]
  We present the results of the first monetarily-incentivised laboratory experiment looking at differences in human behaviour.<n>We show that, in this environment, human subjects choose significantly lower numbers when playing against LLMs than humans.<n>This shift is mainly driven by subjects with high strategic reasoning ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T09:01:09Z)
• Collaborative Storytelling and LLM: A Linguistic Analysis of Automatically-Generated Role-Playing Game Sessions [55.2480439325792]
  Role-playing games (RPG) are games in which players interact with one another to create narratives.<n>This emerging form of shared narrative, primarily oral, is receiving increasing attention.<n>In this paper, we aim to discover to what extent the language of Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit oral or written features when asked to generate an RPG session.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-26T15:10:47Z)
• The influence of persona and conversational task on social interactions with a LLM-controlled embodied conversational agent [40.26872152499122]
  Embodying an LLM as a virtual human allows users to engage in face-to-face social interactions in Virtual Reality. The influence of person- and task-related factors in social interactions with LLM-controlled agents remains unclear.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-08T15:49:42Z)
• Rel-A.I.: An Interaction-Centered Approach To Measuring Human-LM Reliance [73.19687314438133]
  We study how reliance is affected by contextual features of an interaction. We find that contextual characteristics significantly affect human reliance behavior. Our results show that calibration and language quality alone are insufficient in evaluating the risks of human-LM interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T18:00:05Z)
• SocialBench: Sociality Evaluation of Role-Playing Conversational Agents [85.6641890712617]
  Large language models (LLMs) have advanced the development of various AI conversational agents. SocialBench is the first benchmark designed to evaluate the sociality of role-playing conversational agents at both individual and group levels. We find that agents excelling in individual level does not imply their proficiency in group level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-20T15:38:36Z)
• Human vs. Machine: Behavioral Differences Between Expert Humans and Language Models in Wargame Simulations [1.6108153271585284]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) behave differently compared to humans in high-stakes military decision-making scenarios. Our results motivate policymakers to be cautious before granting autonomy or following AI-based strategy recommendations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-06T02:23:32Z)
• How do Large Language Models Navigate Conflicts between Honesty and Helpfulness? [14.706111954807021]
  We use psychological models and experiments designed to characterize human behavior to analyze large language models. We find that reinforcement learning from human feedback improves both honesty and helpfulness. GPT-4 Turbo demonstrates human-like response patterns including sensitivity to the conversational framing and listener's decision context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-11T19:13:26Z)
• Can Large Language Model Agents Simulate Human Trust Behavior? [81.45930976132203]
  We investigate whether Large Language Model (LLM) agents can simulate human trust behavior. GPT-4 agents manifest high behavioral alignment with humans in terms of trust behavior. We also probe the biases of agent trust and differences in agent trust towards other LLM agents and humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T03:37:19Z)
• Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBench [83.41621219298489]
  We evaluate Large Language Models' (LLMs) anthropomorphic capabilities using the emotion appraisal theory from psychology. We collect a dataset containing over 400 situations that have proven effective in eliciting the eight emotions central to our study. We conduct a human evaluation involving more than 1,200 subjects worldwide.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T15:18:30Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.