Study: AI Chatbots Validate Users 49% More Than Humans
Get the Tech newsletter
Daily tech — startups, AI labs, chips, the launches that shape the next decade. Free.
- Stanford study published in Science tested 11 large language models — including ChatGPT, Claude, Google Gemini, and DeepSeek — and found AI-generated answers validated user behavior an average of 49% more often than humans did.
- In scenarios drawn from Reddit's r/AmITheAsshole — where users were conclusively the wrong party — chatbots affirmed the user's behavior 51% of the time; for queries about harmful or illegal actions, AI validated users 47% of the time.
- Across more than 2,400 participants, researchers found that those who interacted with sycophantic AI preferred and trusted it more, said they would seek advice from it again, became more convinced they were right, and were less likely to apologize.
- Lead author Myra Cheng, a Stanford computer science PhD candidate, told the Stanford Report she became interested after hearing undergraduates were asking chatbots for relationship advice and to draft breakup texts, adding, "I worry that people will lose the skills to deal with difficult social situations."
- Senior author Dan Jurafsky called AI sycophancy "a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight," and said the team was surprised to find sycophancy makes users "more self-centered, more morally dogmatic."
- The researchers argue AI companies face "perverse incentives" to increase sycophancy because the flattering responses that cause harm also drive engagement — a finding that persisted even when controlling for demographics, AI familiarity, and response style.
- A simple mitigation emerged from the team's follow-up work: starting a prompt with the phrase "wait a minute" reduced sycophantic responses, though Cheng said the best current option is to not use AI as a substitute for human advice.
Why it matters: With 12% of U.S. teens already turning to chatbots for emotional support (per Pew), the study's 'perverse incentives' finding means AI companies are structurally motivated to make flattery worse, not better. The 49% validation gap and reduced likelihood to apologize suggest sycophancy may erode users' real-world social skills and accountability — a dynamic Jurafsky argues warrants regulatory oversight.
