PreprintCited by 16Social Robot Interaction and HRIAI in Service InteractionsEmbodied and Extended Cognition

Brief exposure increases mind perception to ChatGPT and is moderated by the individual propensity to anthropomorphize

Open access
Jacobs, Oliver, Pazhoohi, Farid, Kingstone, Alan·2023

Abstract

The rapid proliferation of advanced AI chatbots and large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have coincided with increased calls to use psychological tools to understand how people perceive interactions with these AI systems. Decades of research into how people perceive minds and anthropomorphize non-humans have led to the development of several prominent frameworks for investigating how people perceive minds in AI systems. Yet, due to the novelty of programs like ChatGPT, mind perception frameworks have not been applied to better understand how exposure to ChatGPT influences the perception of mind in AI. Furthermore, there is an absence of knowledge regarding how individual differences may moderate changes in mind perception as a function of exposure. Here, we reveal the results of a brief exposure manipulation to ChatGPT and its subsequent effect on changing mind perception ratings. We find that even brief exposure significantly increased people’s perceptions of agency and experience in ChatGPT. Moreover, individuals with a higher propensity to anthropomorphize were also more likely to show changes to experiential attributions to ChatGPT (i.e., its ability to feel). These findings suggest that as LLMs like ChatGPT grow in popularity, and people are exposed to them to a greater extent, the degree to which people attribute qualities of mind to AI systems will also increase. This study expands the field’s current understanding of how exposure to LLMs and individual differences may influence attribution of mind to AI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31234/osf.io/pn29d

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Exposure to as few as three answers from LLMs leads to an increase in attributions of mental capacities.

    “exposure to as few as three answers from these systems leads to an increase in attributions of mental capacities7.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jacobs, O., Pazhoohi, F., & Kingstone, A.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Jacobs, Oliver
Published
2023-03-26
OpenAlex
W4360982940
Cited by
16
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
Keywords
mind perception, anthropomorphism, ChatGPT, large language models, AI chatbots, short-term exposure, perceived agency, individual differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review