People judge machine-made offers as less socially appropriate and are more willing to reject them, yet accept machine-enforced rejections as no less appropriate than human ones; in short, machines are held to different fairness norms for decisions but not for enforcement.

Main Finding

People apply different social norms to LLMs acting on their behalf versus humans: offers generated by LLMs (when no acceptance is required) are judged less socially appropriate than identical offers from humans, whereas people are more willing to have (or expect) humans to reject offers made by LLMs; receiving rejections issued by LLMs is judged no less appropriate than receiving the same rejection from a human. Overall, norms differ for machines as proposers but not for machines as enforcers.

Key Points

• Study scope: Two pre-registered, incentivized experiments using Krupka–Weber norm elicitation on representative UK and US samples (combined N = 2,658). Data and materials: https://osf.io/2yt9e/overview?view_only=8268c7ac95d94f2390fd3ed6dc76269a.
• Games used:
  • Dictator Game: measures perceived appropriateness of 11 possible splits when the decision-maker is either a human or an LLM acting on a human’s behalf.
  • Ultimatum Game: elicit norms about rejecting offers and about who (human vs LLM) issues rejections.
• Core empirical findings (from the two experiments):
• In the Dictator Game (no acceptance mechanism), identical offers from LLMs are rated as less socially appropriate than identical offers from humans. The modal (most common) acceptable split did not shift, but appropriateness ratings decreased for machine-originated offers.
• In the Ultimatum Game where acceptance/rejection matters, it is judged more appropriate for a person to reject offers made by LLMs than to reject identical offers made by humans.
• A rejection coming from an LLM is judged no less socially appropriate than the same rejection coming from a human — i.e., people do not penalize machines for enforcing norms via rejection.
• Interpretation: People appear to hold LLM proposers to different normative standards (or view machine-originated offers as carrying a different social meaning, possibly more exploitative), while accepting machines as legitimate enforcers of fairness.
• Robustness & preregistration: analyses used incentive-compatible modal-matching, nonparametric tests (clustered bootstrap, Wilcoxon rank-sum), Holm–Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons; study preregistered and ethics-approved.

Data & Methods

• Design:
  • Mixed design in Experiment 1: each participant rated all 11 possible splits; between-subjects manipulation of agent type (Human vs LLM acting on behalf of a human).
  • Experiment 2 similarly tested norms about rejection behavior in the Ultimatum Game and legitimacy of LLMs as enforcers.
• Norm elicitation: Krupka–Weber procedure — participants earn a bonus by matching the modal response in their condition, which incentivizes truthful reporting of perceived social norms.
• Samples:
  • Representative samples from Prolific for the UK and a representative US sample (combined N = 2,658). Experiment 1: UK sample N ≈ 1,153 after exclusions (576 Human, 577 LLM).
• Incentives: base participation fee + bonus (£0.50) for matching modal responses in a randomly selected choice (in Experiment 1).
• Statistical approach:
  • Nonparametric tests to compare appropriateness ratings across Human vs LLM conditions.
  • Clustered bootstrap tests for shifts in modal peak; clustered Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for overall differences; Holm–Bonferroni correction for multiple split-wise tests.
• Transparency: pre-registration, full data and code available on OSF; ethical approval obtained.

Implications for AI Economics

• Delegation & social equilibria: Widespread delegation of distributive decisions to LLMs could alter norm perceptions and therefore aggregate outcomes (e.g., lower offers accepted socially when machines decide), potentially changing market or institutional equilibria.
• Strategic use of AI and blame-shifting: People may view low offers from LLMs as more exploitative or as a deliberate strategy to avoid human blame; marketplace actors could exploit or be penalized by these perceptions.
• Legitimacy of algorithmic enforcement: LLMs are not penalized for enforcing norms (e.g., rejecting unfair offers). This implies scope for automated enforcement mechanisms (moderation, sanctions, contract-termination agents) that the public may accept.
• Design & deployment guidance:
  • Systems intended to propose allocations should be designed with awareness of negative normative judgments (e.g., favoring more egalitarian or “socially acceptable” proposals).
  • Systems used for enforcement can be effective socially, but transparency about role (proposer vs enforcer) matters.
• Policy considerations:
  • Regulation and governance should distinguish between roles AIs play (decision-maker vs enforcer) rather than apply blanket approvals or bans.
  • Public attitudes are nuanced: policymakers should avoid one-size-fits-all restrictions and instead target role-specific guidelines (e.g., limits or disclosure requirements for LLMs making distributive proposals).
• Research directions:
  • Link norm-elicited beliefs to actual delegation behavior and downstream market outcomes.
  • Explore heterogeneity (trust in AI, frequency of AI use, cultural differences) and longer-term effects as LLMs become more familiar.
  • Test interventions (framing, disclosure, calibrated fairness objectives) to mitigate negative normative reactions to machine-originated proposals.

If useful, I can produce a one-page bulletized summary for nontechnical audiences, or extract key statistical test results and effect sizes from the Supplementary Materials.