Do people expect different behavior from large language models acting on their behalf? Evidence from norm elicitations in two canonical economic games

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.15312v1
• Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 16:07:00 GMT
• Title: Do people expect different behavior from large language models acting on their behalf? Evidence from norm elicitations in two canonical economic games
• Abstract summary: We study whether people have different expectations when decisions are made by large language models acting on their behalf instead of themselves.<n>We use the Krupka-Weber norm elicitation task to detect shifts in social appropriateness ratings.<n>Results suggest that people apply different norms for machines deciding on how to split resources but are not opposed to machines enforcing the norms.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: While delegating tasks to large language models (LLMs) can save people time, there is growing evidence that offloading tasks to such models produces social costs. We use behavior in two canonical economic games to study whether people have different expectations when decisions are made by LLMs acting on their behalf instead of themselves. More specifically, we study the social appropriateness of a spectrum of possible behaviors: when LLMs divide resources on our behalf (Dictator Game and Ultimatum Game) and when they monitor the fairness of splits of resources (Ultimatum Game). We use the Krupka-Weber norm elicitation task to detect shifts in social appropriateness ratings. Results of two pre-registered and incentivized experimental studies using representative samples from the UK and US (N = 2,658) show three key findings. First, people find that offers from machines - when no acceptance is necessary - are judged to be less appropriate than when they come from humans, although there is no shift in the modal response. Second - when acceptance is necessary - it is more appropriate for a person to reject offers from machines than from humans. Third, receiving a rejection of an offer from a machine is no less socially appropriate than receiving the same rejection from a human. Overall, these results suggest that people apply different norms for machines deciding on how to split resources but are not opposed to machines enforcing the norms. The findings are consistent with offers made by machines now being viewed as having both a cognitive and emotional component.

Related papers

• Benchmarking large language model agent societies against human behavioural distributions [0.0]
  Populations of large language model agents are increasingly used as experimental societies.<n>Three doubts shadow every such result: whether the agents behave like the humans they stand in for, whether a finding survives changes to the apparatus that leave the rules untouched, and whether apparent social dynamics are interaction at all rather than the reproduction of experiments the models have read.<n>This article introduces SILICA, an open instrument that tests all three.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-28T10:50:32Z)
• 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)
• To Think or Not To Think, That is The Question for Large Reasoning Models in Theory of Mind Tasks [56.11584171938381]
  Theory of Mind (ToM) assesses whether models can infer hidden mental states such as beliefs, desires, and intentions.<n>Recent progress in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) has boosted step-by-step inference in mathematics and coding.<n>We present a systematic study of nine advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) comparing reasoning models with non-reasoning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T08:16:13Z)
• neuralFOMO: Can LLMs Handle Being Second Best? Measuring Envy-Like Preferences in Multi-Agent Settings [2.5421739061996753]
  Envy is a common human behavior that shapes competitiveness and can alter outcomes in team settings.<n>This paper tests whether large language models (LLMs) show envy-like behavior toward each other.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-15T16:17:12Z)
• Decision and Gender Biases in Large Language Models: A Behavioral Economic Perspective [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate economic and organisational processes.<n>This study investigates whether advanced LLMs behave as rational agents or whether they reproduce human behavioural tendencies when faced with classic decision problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-15T18:38:17Z)
• Benevolent Dictators? On LLM Agent Behavior in Dictator Games [2.6514130238294027]
  In behavioral sciences, experiments such as the ultimatum game are conducted to assess preferences for fairness or self-interest.<n>We propose the LLM agent behavior study (LLM-ABS) framework to explore how different system prompts influence model behavior.<n>We found that agents often exhibit a strong preference for fairness, as well as a significant impact of the system prompt on their behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-11T19:29:12Z)
• Where Fact Ends and Fairness Begins: Redefining AI Bias Evaluation through Cognitive Biases [77.3489598315447]
  We argue that identifying the boundary between fact and fair is essential for meaningful fairness evaluation.<n>We introduce Fact-or-Fair, a benchmark with (i) objective queries aligned with descriptive, fact-based judgments, and (ii) subjective queries aligned with normative, fairness-based judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T10:54:11Z)
• Large Language Models Assume People are More Rational than We Really are [10.857040292234984]
  In order for AI to communicate effectively with people, they must understand how we make decisions.<n>Previous empirical evidence seems to suggest that these implicit models are accurate.<n>We find that this is actually not the case when both simulating and predicting people's choices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T18:15:27Z)
• MOSSBench: Is Your Multimodal Language Model Oversensitive to Safe Queries? [70.77691645678804]
  Humans are prone to cognitive distortions -- biased thinking patterns that lead to exaggerated responses to specific stimuli. This paper demonstrates that advanced Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit similar tendencies. We identify three types of stimuli that trigger the oversensitivity of existing MLLMs: Exaggerated Risk, Negated Harm, and Counterintuitive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-22T23:26:07Z)
• The Devil is in the Neurons: Interpreting and Mitigating Social Biases in Pre-trained Language Models [78.69526166193236]
  Pre-trained Language models (PLMs) have been acknowledged to contain harmful information, such as social biases. We propose sc Social Bias Neurons to accurately pinpoint units (i.e., neurons) in a language model that can be attributed to undesirable behavior, such as social bias. As measured by prior metrics from StereoSet, our model achieves a higher degree of fairness while maintaining language modeling ability with low cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T15:41:06Z)
• Are Large Language Models Aligned with People's Social Intuitions for Human-Robot Interactions? [7.308479353736709]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in robotics, especially for high-level action planning. In this work, we test whether LLMs reproduce people's intuitions and communication in human-robot interaction scenarios. We show that vision models fail to capture the essence of video stimuli and that LLMs tend to rate different communicative acts and behavior higher than people.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T22:23:23Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• Socratis: Are large multimodal models emotionally aware? [63.912414283486555]
  Existing emotion prediction benchmarks do not consider the diversity of emotions that an image and text can elicit in humans due to various reasons. We propose Socratis, a societal reactions benchmark, where each image-caption (IC) pair is annotated with multiple emotions and the reasons for feeling them. We benchmark the capability of state-of-the-art multimodal large language models to generate the reasons for feeling an emotion given an IC pair.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-31T13:59:35Z)
• Do the Rewards Justify the Means? Measuring Trade-Offs Between Rewards and Ethical Behavior in the MACHIAVELLI Benchmark [61.43264961005614]
  We develop a benchmark of 134 Choose-Your-Own-Adventure games containing over half a million rich, diverse scenarios. We evaluate agents' tendencies to be power-seeking, cause disutility, and commit ethical violations. Our results show that agents can both act competently and morally, so concrete progress can be made in machine ethics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-06T17:59:03Z)

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.