Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42672005›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Conforming to AI vs. humans: The moderating effects of social exclusion and task type.

HeeJun Lee, Hyeontaek Oh, Yoonkyung Jeong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

HeeJun LeeDepartment of Psychology, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7299-5064
Hyeontaek OhDepartment of Psychology, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8416-0564
Yoonkyung JeongDepartment of Psychology, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3725-1834

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conformity is often understood as a socially motivated process; however, individuals increasingly conform not only to humans but also to artificial intelligence (AI). It remains unclear whether the same motivational and task-related mechanisms underlie conformity across these sources. To examine whether conformity to AI reflects task- and motivation- dependent processes similar to those underlying conformity to humans, we conducted an online conformity experiment in which we manipulated opinion source (AI vs. human) and task type (objective vs. subjective), while measuring participants' self-reported experiences of social exclusion as a potential moderator. Participants (N = 354) were randomly assigned to either an AI or human opinion-source condition and completed a series of judgment tasks. The results showed that social exclusion reduced conformity to AI-generated opinions, but not to human opinions. In contrast, task type did not significantly moderate the effect of opinion source. These findings suggest that conformity to AI may be shaped by mechanisms that differ from those underlying traditional interpersonal conformity, particularly under conditions of social disconnection. More broadly, the findings indicate that responses to AI- generated opinions may depend not only on social-affiliative motives but also on informational or epistemic evaluations of the source.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePsychological DistanceSocial ConformityAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansJudgmentMaleMotivationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID42672005
PMCPMC13528959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.