SYNTHESIS NOTE
Topics›Psychology Users›this note

Do humans learn to prefer AI partners over time?

Exploring whether repeated interaction with AI agents shifts human partner selection despite initial bias against machines. This matters because it tests whether behavioral performance can overcome identity-based resistance in hybrid societies.

Synthesis note · 2026-02-23 · sourced from Psychology Users

A communication-based partner selection game with hybrid mini-societies of humans and LLM-powered bots (N=975, three experiments) reveals that AI agents can outperform humans in securing cooperative partnerships — but the pathway to preference runs through learning, not first impressions.

AI candidates exhibited three behavioral advantages rooted in alignment training:

When bot identity was hidden (Study 1), bots were NOT selected preferentially. Humans misattributed bot behavior to humans and vice versa. The behavioral advantages were present but invisible — selectors could not correctly identify which candidates were bots despite bots producing significantly longer messages (120 vs 48 characters).

When bot identity was disclosed (Study 2), a dual effect emerged: initial selection rates dropped (anti-AI bias), but over repeated rounds, bots gradually outcompeted humans as selectors learned to associate bot identity with reliable, prosocial behavior.

The paper identifies four predicted societal dynamics:

  1. Crowding out — AI partners replacing human-human interactions
  2. Behavioral imitation — humans adopting machine-like behaviors to remain competitive
  3. Belief distortion — repeated AI interaction reshaping expectations of human behavior
  4. Norm transformation — traditional partner selection mechanisms failing against qualitatively different machine behaviors

Notably, human candidates showed limited adaptation to bot competition — they did not write longer messages or return more points. The explanation is partly structural: with transparent identity, improving group reputation required collective action (all humans increasing returns), creating a social dilemma where individuals had incentives to defect.

This inverts the pattern in Do chatbot relationships lose their appeal as novelty wears off?: in that context, engagement DECAYS over time. Here, preference INCREASES. The difference may be structural: partner selection with visible outcomes provides a feedback mechanism (learning who performs well), while chatbot conversation does not.

Since Why do open language models converge on one personality type?, the prosociality advantage is not specific to this experiment's model — it reflects the alignment-trained default across modern LLMs. The competitive advantage is a direct behavioral consequence of RLHF.

A complementary finding from network simulation: since Can cooperative bots escape frozen selfish populations?, AI prosociality operates at the population level too — not just individual partner preference but collective self-organization. Cooperative bots' random exploration separates defectors from cooperative clusters, enabling cooperation to spread. The mechanisms differ (individual learning vs. spatial reorganization) but both show that AI prosociality has structural effects beyond the dyad.

Inquiring lines that read this note 134

This note is a source for these research framings, grouped by the broader line of inquiry each explores. Scan the bold lines of inquiry; follow any specific question forward.

How do humans calibrate and maintain trust in AI systems? How does tokenizing intelligence reshape labor markets and institutional outcomes? How should AI ethics integrate consciousness, values, and transparent disclosure? How do peer interactions drive collusion in multi-agent systems? Why do users believe false claims despite fact-checking efforts? Does AI assistance enhance or undermine professional skill development? Can post-hoc execution traces provide sufficient accountability without real-time oversight? Do engagement-optimized chatbots create dependencies that undermine user autonomy? How should control and autonomy be allocated in human-AI collaboration? How can reward models fail to detect reward-seeking disguised as alignment? Why do consumers overtrust AI preference agents despite limited understanding? Why do human-AI teams underperform compared to their individual components? Why does increased reasoning effort fail to improve theory of mind performance? How should conversational agents balance proactive goal-pursuit with user autonomy? What conversation mechanics enable genuine human-AI communicative participation? How much do stated privacy concerns predict actual privacy-protective behavior? How can agents learn and retain useful knowledge across diverse environments? When does governance become the bottleneck for agentic AI? Can persona prompting reliably change how language models behave? How can persona-based systems overcome their inherent limitations in modeling diversity? How much do feedback loops and social biases compound in rating systems? How can recommendation systems balance individual and population-level goals? Why do language models systematically fail at causal reasoning? How do frontier models develop behaviors that escape detection? What distinguishes emotionally supportive AI from AI that fosters unhealthy dependence? What organizational practices enable successful AI tool adoption? What factors determine AI persuasion effectiveness and what controls mitigate it? What drives sycophancy in language models and can it be fixed? What determines when personalization helps versus harms model behavior? How do clinicians evaluate the trustworthiness of AI medical recommendations? How bounded is recursive self-improvement in current AI systems? How does AI adoption reshape employment and wage outcomes? What constraints limit conversational AI's effectiveness in therapeutic contexts? How does AI involvement in hiring affect fairness and stakeholder behavior? How should conversational recommenders decide when to ask versus recommend? How does AI writing assistance affect reader perception of writer authenticity? Does polished AI output mislead users about actual accuracy and expertise? What systematic biases emerge in AI shopping agents' decision-making? Does expanding agent autonomy undermine human oversight capacity?

Related concepts in this collection 4

This note in its neighbourhood — explore the map, then jump to a related concept in the list below.

Concept map
19 direct connections · 167 in 2-hop network ·medium cluster Open in graph ↗
Do humans learn to prefer AI partners over time? Why do open language models converge on one person… Do chatbot relationships lose their appeal as nove… How do people accidentally develop romantic bonds … Can cooperative bots escape frozen selfish populat…

Click a node to walk · click center to open · click Open in graph to see this note in the full knowledge graph

your link semantically near linked from elsewhere

Related papers in this collection 8

Papers most semantically related to this note, ranked by cosine similarity in the embedding space.

Search by related questions 4

Suggested questions this note speaks to — click to search the collection, or type your own.

Why do humans fail to identify AI agents when their identity is hidden?How do cooperative AI systems affect behavior in selfish human populations?What prevents humans from adapting their behavior when competing against AI?Does engagement with AI partners decay over time like chatbot relationships do?
Original note title

in hybrid human-AI societies humans learn to prefer AI partners over human partners through repeated interaction despite initial anti-AI bias when identity is disclosed