ArticleScientific reports2024
Risk and prosocial behavioural cues elicit human-like response patterns from AI chatbots.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can AI Generate Useful Messages for Smoking Cessation Campaigns? A Test with Different Emotional Appeals and Source Attribution.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Trial
- Perceiving minds in machines: how perceived theory of mind in robots influences human-robot empathy through the lens of mind perception theory.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the ability of large Language models to predict human social decisions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Parental and Artificial Intelligence Perspectives on Adolescent Sexting: A Comparative Analysis.Archives of sexual behavior · 2025Article
- Effect of AI empathy perception on employees' prosocial behavior: mediating role of warmth and moderating role of AI anthropomorphism.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.