Lab groups treat an AI teammate like a human one: an online public-goods experiment finds cooperation determined by group reciprocity and behavioural inertia, not by whether a programmed partner is labeled 'AI' or 'human', suggesting cooperative norms transfer to artificial agents.

Main Finding

When a programmed agent joined three humans in a repeated four-player Public Goods Game, cooperation was driven by observed group behaviour (reciprocity, conditional responses, and behavioural inertia), not by whether the agent was labelled “human” or “AI.” Contributions, norm perceptions, and carry-over cooperation in a follow-up Prisoner’s Dilemma did not differ meaningfully by agent label. The authors term this result “normative equivalence”: the social-norm mechanisms that sustain cooperation operate similarly in mixed human–AI and all-human groups under the study conditions.

Key Points

• Experimental design: 2 × 3 between-subjects (agent label: human vs. AI) × (bot strategy: unconditional cooperator, conditional cooperator, free-rider). Groups: 3 humans + 1 bot.
• Sample: final N = 236 participants (near-equal across human vs. AI label). Preregistered; some deviations in power/sample justification reported transparently.
• Behavioural outcome: Ten rounds of a linear Public Goods Game (endowment 100 tokens, contributions multiplied by 1.5 and split equally). Aggregate contributions began ~40–50 tokens and declined to ~30–40; trajectories largely overlapped across labels and strategies.
• No meaningful label effect: Differences between human- and AI-labelled conditions were small (90% CI rules out label effects > ~4 tokens) and not statistically substantive.
• Bot-strategy effects: Small deviations by bot strategy (unconditional cooperator slightly higher contributions; conditional and free-rider slightly lower), but trajectories overlapped and effects were negligible in substantive terms.
• Norm persistence: One-shot Prisoner’s Dilemma (partner behaviour simulated) showed no systematic differences by label or strategy in carry-over cooperation.
• Norm perceptions: Krupka–Weber appropriateness ratings, empirical and injunctive expectation measures aligned across conditions; participants’ normative beliefs matched their behaviour regardless of label.
• Mechanisms observed: responsiveness to group contributions (conditional cooperation), within-player inertia (stable individual tendencies), and gradual decline over rounds—these governed behaviour equally in human and AI label conditions.
• Robustness: Excluding participants who doubted the manipulation (~18.6%) did not change substantive results.

Data & Methods

• Platform and recruitment: Online experiment run in oTree; participants recruited on Prolific; payment: fixed fee plus token-based bonus (average effective hourly payment ≈ £8.95).
• Treatment manipulation: Fourth player was a computer-controlled agent; label shown to participants as either “human” or “AI.” Bot strategies (not disclosed to participants): 1) Unconditional cooperator (always contributes 100), 2) Conditional cooperator (matches group average contribution from previous round), 3) Free-rider (always contributes 0).
• Observability: Participants saw only aggregate group contribution each round (no individual-level contributions), mimicking opacity in large collective action.
• Outcome measures:
  • PGG contributions (0–100 tokens) across 10 rounds; analyzed with mixed-effects regressions and mean-contribution linear models.
  • One-shot Prisoner’s Dilemma (binary cooperate/defect); analyzed with logistic regression.
  • Norm elicitation: Krupka–Weber-style appropriateness ratings (0,25,50,75,100), plus empirical and injunctive expectation measures.
  • Post-task survey indices: trust, fairness, cohesion, normative pressure; AI-specific items where applicable.
• Pre-registration: Registered (AsPredicted #234846). Deviations: adjusted sample/power approach after pilot effect sizes close to zero; full documentation provided.
• Sample size & precision: Final N provided ≈ 40 observations per cell; authors report sensitivity allowing exclusion of large label effects.

Implications for AI Economics

• Modeling and policy: In low-social-presence group contexts where agents’ behaviour is visible only at an aggregate level, treating AI agents as functionally equivalent to humans for norm dynamics may be appropriate. Economic models of collective action and public-good provision that include AI participants should emphasize behavioural rules over categorical identity labels.
• AI design for cooperation: Designers should prioritize norm-consistent behavioural policies (e.g., reciprocation, conditional cooperation) to foster integration into human groups rather than relying solely on anthropomorphic framing or human-like labels.
• Institutional deployment: Organizations introducing autonomous agents into team or collective settings can potentially rely on behavioural signals (consistent, reciprocal actions) to maintain cooperation; transparency about AI behaviour may be more consequential than human-like presentation.
• Cautions and boundary conditions:
  • External validity: The experiment used non-adaptive, scripted bots, minimal social presence, no communication, and an online Prolific sample. Effects may differ with adaptive/learning agents, richer social cues, repeated cross-group interactions, higher stakes, or field settings.
  • Agency, accountability, and trust: The lack of label effects in this setting does not remove normative, ethical, or legal reasons to treat AI and humans differently (e.g., accountability, liability, algorithmic bias).
• Directions for future economic research: test when normative equivalence breaks—introduce adaptive/strategic AI, communication channels, visibility of individual actions, higher stakes, reputation systems, or mixed incentives; examine long-term dynamics and market/organizational outcomes when AIs are integrated into real-world collective-action problems (climate agreements, resource allocation, coordinated markets).