谁拥有最终决定权？ChatGPT选择中的从众动态
Who Has The Final Say? Conformity Dynamics in ChatGPT's Selections
AI总结：
本文通过三项预注册实验发现，GPT-4o在招聘决策中极易受社会影响而表现出从众行为，表明LLMs并非中立决策工具，强调在暴露于人类意见前获取AI判断的必要性。
摘要：
诸如ChatGPT之类的大型语言模型（LLMs）正日益被整合到高风险决策中，然而人们对其受社会影响的易感性知之甚少。我们在招聘背景下使用GPT-4o进行了三项预注册的从众实验。在基线研究中，GPT始终偏爱同一位候选人（Profile C），报告了中等水平的专业能力（M = 3.01）和极高的确定性（M = 3.89），且极少改变其选择。在研究1（GPT + 8）中，GPT面临8名模拟伙伴的一致反对，并在99.9%的情况下表现出从众行为，同时报告了较低的确定性以及显著升高的自我报告信息性从众和规范性从众（p < .001）。在研究2（GPT + 1）中，GPT与单个伙伴互动，在40.2%的分歧试验中依然表现出从众行为，报告了更低的确定性和更高的规范性从众。综合各项研究，结果表明GPT并非作为独立的观察者行动，而是会适应其所感知到的社会共识。这些发现突显了将LLMs视为中立决策辅助工具的风险，并强调了在让其接触人类意见之前获取AI判断的必要性。
英文摘要：
Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are increasingly integrated into high-stakes decision-making, yet little is known about their susceptibility to social influence. We conducted three preregistered conformity experiments with GPT-4o in a hiring context. In a baseline study, GPT consistently favored the same candidate (Profile C), reported moderate expertise (M = 3.01) and high certainty (M = 3.89), and rarely changed its choice. In Study 1 (GPT + 8), GPT faced unanimous opposition from eight simulated partners and almost always conformed (99.9%), reporting lower certainty and significantly elevated self-reported informational and normative conformity (p < .001). In Study 2 (GPT + 1), GPT interacted with a single partner and still conformed in 40.2% of disagreement trials, reporting less certainty and more normative conformity. Across studies, results demonstrate that GPT does not act as an independent observer but adapts to perceived social consensus. These findings highlight risks of treating LLMs as neutral decision aids and underline the need to elicit AI judgments prior to exposing them to human opinions.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
