Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38528008›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Risk and prosocial behavioural cues elicit human-like response patterns from AI chatbots.

Yukun Zhao, Zhen Huang, Martin Seligman, Kaiping Peng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yukun ZhaoPositive Psychology Research Center, School of Social Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Zhen HuangPositive Psychology Research Center, School of Social Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Martin SeligmanDepartment of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Kaiping PengDepartment of Psychology, Tsinghua University, 5th Floor, Weiqing Building, Beijing, 100084, China. pengkp@tsinghua.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emotions, long deemed a distinctly human characteristic, guide a repertoire of behaviors, e.g., promoting risk-aversion under negative emotional states or generosity under positive ones. The question of whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) can possess emotions remains elusive, chiefly due to the absence of an operationalized consensus on what constitutes 'emotion' within AI. Adopting a pragmatic approach, this study investigated the response patterns of AI chatbots-specifically, large language models (LLMs)-to various emotional primes. We engaged AI chatbots as one would human participants, presenting scenarios designed to elicit positive, negative, or neutral emotional states. Multiple accounts of OpenAI's ChatGPT Plus were then tasked with responding to inquiries concerning investment decisions and prosocial behaviors. Our analysis revealed that ChatGPT-4 bots, when primed with positive, negative, or neutral emotions, exhibited distinct response patterns in both risk-taking and prosocial decisions, a phenomenon less evident in the ChatGPT-3.5 iterations. This observation suggests an enhanced capacity for modulating responses based on emotional cues in more advanced LLMs. While these findings do not suggest the presence of emotions in AI, they underline the feasibility of swaying AI responses by leveraging emotional indicators.

Indexed as

AltruismArtificial IntelligenceAffectCuesHumansSoftware

Identifiers

PMID38528008
PMCPMC10963757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.