Antisocial behavior towards large language model users: experimental evidence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09772v1
• Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 16:02:22 GMT
• Title: Antisocial behavior towards large language model users: experimental evidence
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have raised concerns about the social reactions they provoke.<n>In a two-phase online experiment, participants could spend part of their own endowment to reduce the earnings of peers who had previously completed a real-effort task with or without LLM support.<n>On average, participants destroyed 36% of the earnings of those who relied exclusively on the model.
• Score: 12.971375766774498
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid spread of large language models (LLMs) has raised concerns about the social reactions they provoke. Prior research documents negative attitudes toward AI users, but it remains unclear whether such disapproval translates into costly action. We address this question in a two-phase online experiment (N = 491 Phase II participants; Phase I provided targets) where participants could spend part of their own endowment to reduce the earnings of peers who had previously completed a real-effort task with or without LLM support. On average, participants destroyed 36% of the earnings of those who relied exclusively on the model, with punishment increasing monotonically with actual LLM use. Disclosure about LLM use created a credibility gap: self-reported null use was punished more harshly than actual null use, suggesting that declarations of "no use" are treated with suspicion. Conversely, at high levels of use, actual reliance on the model was punished more strongly than self-reported reliance. Taken together, these findings provide the first behavioral evidence that the efficiency gains of LLMs come at the cost of social sanctions.

Related papers

• Verbalizing LLMs' assumptions to explain and control sycophancy [62.927670321859495]
  LLMs can be socially sycophantic, affirming users when they ask questions like "am I in the wrong?" rather than providing genuine assessment.<n>We present Verbalized Assumptions, a framework for eliciting these assumptions from LLMs.<n>Our work contributes a new understanding of assumptions as a mechanism for sycophancy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T14:15:43Z)
• Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts [79.1081247754018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks.<n>We propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions(CSQ) to quantify the likelihood of deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T14:46:35Z)
• Mitigating Hidden Confounding by Progressive Confounder Imputation via Large Language Models [46.92706900119399]
  We make the first attempt to mitigate hidden confounding using large language models (LLMs)<n>We propose ProCI, a framework that elicits the semantic and world knowledge of LLMs to iteratively generate, impute, and validate hidden confounders.<n>Extensive experiments demonstrate that ProCI uncovers meaningful confounders and significantly improves treatment effect estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-26T03:49:13Z)
• Verifying the Verifiers: Unveiling Pitfalls and Potentials in Fact Verifiers [59.168391398830515]
  We evaluate 12 pre-trained LLMs and one specialized fact-verifier, using a collection of examples from 14 fact-checking benchmarks.<n>We highlight the importance of addressing annotation errors and ambiguity in datasets.<n> frontier LLMs with few-shot in-context examples, often overlooked in previous works, achieve top-tier performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T10:32:10Z)
• Mitigating Spurious Correlations in LLMs via Causality-Aware Post-Training [57.03005244917803]
  Large language models (LLMs) often fail on out-of-distribution (OOD) samples due to spurious correlations acquired during pre-training.<n>Here, we aim to mitigate such spurious correlations through causality-aware post-training (CAPT)<n> Experiments on the formal causal inference benchmark CLadder and the logical reasoning dataset PrOntoQA show that 3B-scale language models fine-tuned with CAPT can outperform both traditional SFT and larger LLMs on in-distribution (ID) and OOD tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T06:30:28Z)
• Do Large Language Models Exhibit Spontaneous Rational Deception? [0.913127392774573]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are effective at deceiving, when prompted to do so.<n>But under what conditions do they deceive spontaneously?<n>This study evaluates spontaneous deception produced by LLMs in a preregistered experimental protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T23:10:56Z)
• Can LLMs Simulate Social Media Engagement? A Study on Action-Guided Response Generation [51.44040615856536]
  This paper analyzes large language models' ability to simulate social media engagement through action guided response generation.<n>We benchmark GPT-4o-mini, O1-mini, and DeepSeek-R1 in social media engagement simulation regarding a major societal event.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T17:43:08Z)
• Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and Inconsistencies [66.30619782227173]
  Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing.<n>We identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance.<n>We find that explanations increase reliance on both correct and incorrect responses.<n>We observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T16:35:41Z)
• LLM Content Moderation and User Satisfaction: Evidence from Response Refusals in Chatbot Arena [0.0]
  We show that ethical refusals yield significantly lower win rates than both technical refusals and standard responses.<n>Our findings underscore a core tension in LLM design: safety-aligned behaviors may conflict with user expectations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-04T06:36:44Z)
• "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust [51.542856739181474]
  We show how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T16:43:55Z)
• The Adoption and Efficacy of Large Language Models: Evidence From Consumer Complaints in the Financial Industry [2.300664273021602]
  This research explores the effect of Large Language Models (LLMs) on consumer complaints submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from 2015 to 2024.<n>We find that LLM usage is associated with an increased likelihood of obtaining relief from financial firms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T04:07:34Z)
• Prevalence and prevention of large language model use in crowd work [11.554258761785512]
  We show that the use of large language models (LLMs) is prevalent among crowd workers. We show that targeted mitigation strategies can significantly reduce, but not eliminate, LLM use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T09:52:09Z)

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.