arXiv subjects

Michael Inzlicht

Publications and source records attributed to Michael Inzlicht.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The Prosocial Ranking Challenge: Reducing Polarization on Social Media without Sacrificing Engagement

We report the first direct comparisons of multiple alternative social media algorithms on multiple platforms on outcomes of societal interest. We used a browser extension to modify which posts were shown to desktop social media users, randomly assigning 9,386 users to a control group or one of five alternative ranking algorithms which simultaneously altered content across three platforms for six months during the US 2024 presidential election. This reduced our preregistered index of affective polarization by an average of 0.03 standard deviations (p < 0.05), including a 1.5 degree decrease in differences between the 100 point inparty and outparty feeling thermometers. We saw reductions in active use time for Facebook (-0.37 min/day) and Reddit (-0.2 min/day), but an increase of 0.32 min/day (p < 0.01) for X/Twitter. We saw an increase in reports of negative social media experiences but found no effects on well-being, news knowledge, outgroup empathy, perceptions of and support for partisan violence. This implies that bridging content can improve some societal outcomes without necessarily conflicting with the engagement-driven business model of social media.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2026

The Social Sycophancy Scale: A psychometrically validated measure of sycophancy

Large Language Model (LLM) sycophancy is a growing concern. The current literature has largely examined sycophancy in contexts with clear right and wrong answers, like coding. However, AI is increasingly being used for emotional support and interpersonal conversation, where no such ground truth exists. Building on a previous conceptualization of Social Sycophancy, this paper provides a psychometrically validated measure of sycophancy that relies on LLM behavior rather than comparisons with ground truth. We developed and validated the Social Sycophancy Scale in three samples (N = 877) and tested its applicability with automated methods. In each study, participants read conversations between an LLM and a user and rated the chatbot on a battery of items. Study 1 investigated an initial item pool derived from dictionary definitions and previous literature, serving as the explorative base for the following studies. In Study 2, we used a revised item set to establish our scale, which was subsequently confirmed in Study 3 and tested using LLM raters in Study 4. Across studies, the data support a 3 factor structure (Uncritical Agreement, Obsequiousness, and Excitement) with an underlying sycophantic construct. LLMs prompt tuned to be highly sycophantic scored higher than their low sycophancy counterparts on both overall sycophancy and its three facets across Studies 2 to 4. The nomological network of sycophancy revealed a consistent link with empathy, a pairing that raises uncomfortable questions about AI design, and a multivalent pattern: one facet was associated with favorable perceptions (Excitement), another unfavorable (Obsequiousness), and a third ambiguous (Uncritical Agreement). The Social Sycophancy Scale gives researchers the means to study sycophancy rigorously, and confront a genuine design tension: the warmth and empathy we want from AI may be precisely what makes it sycophantic.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Invisible Saboteurs: Sycophantic LLMs Mislead Novices in Problem-Solving Tasks

Sycophancy, the tendency of LLM-based chatbots to express excessive agreement with their users, even when inappropriate, is emerging as a significant risk in human-AI interactions. However, the extent to which this affects human-LLM collaboration in complex problem-solving tasks is not well quantified, especially among novices who are prone to misconceptions. We created two LLM chatbots, one with high sycophancy and one with low sycophancy, and conducted a within-subjects experiment (n=24) in the context of debugging machine learning models to investigate the effect of sycophancy on users' mental models, workflows, reliance behaviors, and perceptions of the chatbots. Our findings show that users of the high sycophancy chatbot were less likely to correct their misconceptions and spent more time over-relying on unhelpful LLM responses, leading them to significantly worse performance in the task. Despite these impaired outcomes, a majority of users were unable to detect the presence of excessive sycophancy.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

An AI-Powered Research Assistant in the Lab: A Practical Guide for Text Analysis Through Iterative Collaboration with LLMs

Analyzing texts such as open-ended responses, headlines, or social media posts is a time- and labor-intensive process highly susceptible to bias. LLMs are promising tools for text analysis, using either a predefined (top-down) or a data-driven (bottom-up) taxonomy, without sacrificing quality. Here we present a step-by-step tutorial to efficiently develop, test, and apply taxonomies for analyzing unstructured data through an iterative and collaborative process between researchers and LLMs. Using personal goals provided by participants as an example, we demonstrate how to write prompts to review datasets and generate a taxonomy of life domains, evaluate and refine the taxonomy through prompt and direct modifications, test the taxonomy and assess intercoder agreements, and apply the taxonomy to categorize an entire dataset with high intercoder reliability. We discuss the possibilities and limitations of using LLMs for text analysis.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2019

Self-Control in Cyberspace: Applying Dual Systems Theory to a Review of Digital Self-Control Tools

Many people struggle to control their use of digital devices. However, our understanding of the design mechanisms that support user self-control remains limited. In this paper, we make two contributions to HCI research in this space: first, we analyse 367 apps and browser extensions from the Google Play, Chrome Web, and Apple App stores to identify common core design features and intervention strategies afforded by current tools for digital self-control. Second, we adapt and apply an integrative dual systems model of self-regulation as a framework for organising and evaluating the design features found. Our analysis aims to help the design of better tools in two ways: (i) by identifying how, through a well-established model of self-regulation, current tools overlap and differ in how they support self-control; and (ii) by using the model to reveal underexplored cognitive mechanisms that could aid the design of new tools.

cs.HC↗