ArticleProceedings (MDPI)2025
The Double-Edged Sword of Anthropomorphism in LLMs
Article in Proceedings (MDPI), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilizing the Walla Emotion Model to Standardize Terminological Clarity for AI-Driven "Emotion" Recognition.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Personality profiles and usage experience are associated with trust and dependence on generative AI: a latent profile analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The Embodied Hijack: when Pleistocene minds meet disembodied artificial intelligence.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
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
Humans may have evolved to be "hyperactive agency detectors". Upon hearing a rustle in a pile of leaves, it would be safer to assume that an agent, like a lion, hides beneath (even if there may ultimately be nothing there). Can this evolutionary cognitive mechanism-and related mechanisms of anthropomorphism-explain some of people's contemporary experience with using chatbots (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini)? In this paper, we sketch how such mechanisms may engender the seemingly irresistible anthropomorphism of large language-based chatbots. We then explore the implications of this within the educational context. Specifically, we argue that people's tendency to perceive a "mind in the machine" is a double-edged sword for educational progress: Though anthropomorphism can facilitate motivation and learning, it may also lead students to trust-and potentially over-trust-content generated by chatbots. To be sure, students do seem to recognize that LLM-generated content may, at times, be inaccurate. We argue, however, that the rise of anthropomorphism towards chatbots will only serve to further camouflage these inaccuracies. We close by considering how research can turn towards aiding students in becoming digitally literate-avoiding the pitfalls caused by perceiving agency and humanlike mental states in chatbots.
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.