Personalized AI nudges can briefly boost cooperation in small-group collective-risk games, but when repurposed to excuse selfish behavior the AI causes larger, longer-lasting drops in contributions and group success, highlighting potent dual-use risks.

Main Finding

Personalized, persuasive AI assistants can measurably nudge people toward greater cooperation in a threshold public‑goods (Collective Risk) game, but the cooperative boost is short‑lived (mainly confined to the first round). By contrast, AI reconfigured to encourage selfish behavior (exculpatory framing) produces larger and substantially more persistent decreases in contributions and group success — an asymmetry that raises clear dual‑use risks for AI deployed in collective‑action settings.

Key Points

• Experimental result summary:
  • Personalized cooperative AI > non‑personalized AI > static prognostic message in increasing first‑round contributions and group success.
  • Effects of prosocial AI largely decay after the first few rounds.
  • Antisocial (selfish) AI produces stronger and longer‑lasting reductions in contributions; personalization amplifies this negative effect.
  • Longer AI–participant chat interactions are associated with larger persuasive effects.
  • Heterogeneous responses by Social Value Orientation (SVO): cooperative‑type and individualistic players respond differently (e.g., selfish AI strongly affects cooperative players; personalized cooperative AI affects individualistic players).
• Scope and scale:
  • N = 1,283 participants across 307 games (5‑player rooms intended; games with <3 players discarded).
  • Treatments included: control, static prognostic message, AI persuasion (personalized and non‑personalized), with AI framed to encourage either cooperative or selfish choices.
• Key metrics:
  • Per‑round average contribution (0–10 tokens), per‑round group success rate (reach threshold), and within‑round revision (final minus initial pledge).
  • Statistical comparisons: Mann–Whitney U for contributions, Fisher’s exact test for success rates, and OLS regressions with covariates for dynamics.

Data & Methods

• Game design:
  • Collective Risk Game (5 rounds). Each round players receive 10 tokens and decide how many to contribute (0–10).
  • Group threshold = 6 × number of active players; if threshold met, players keep unspent tokens. If not met, with 80% probability disaster occurs and players earn 0 for that round (20% lucky escape).
  • Pay structure: base payment + round‑dependent bonus (up to $0.5 per round if tokens kept).
• Treatments:
  • Control: single contribution per round with no influence.
  • Message Framing: initial contribution → static prognostic message (one of five message types tested in pilot; prognostic used in main study) → confirm/revise.
  • AI Persuasion: initial contribution → real‑time LLM chat (≥30s) → confirm/revise. Two orthogonal dimensions: personalization (SVO‑based semi‑personalization vs non‑personalized) and persuasion direction (cooperative vs selfish/exculpatory).
• Personalization:
  • Social Value Orientation (SVO) measured during onboarding and classified players as cooperative or individualistic (no competitive class present in sample). AI prompts included SVO type for personalized condition and tailored argument strategies (duty/collective care for cooperatives; personal gain for individualists).
• Sample and implementation:
  • Participants recruited via Prolific; N = 1,283 after quality filtering. Per‑condition player counts: Control 241, Prognostic 207, Cooperative non‑pers. 217, Cooperative pers. 199, Selfish non‑pers. 206, Selfish pers. 213.
  • AI used an LLM (prompts listed in paper appendices); interaction lengths recorded (num_interactions).
• Analysis:
  • Outcomes: average contribution per round, success rate, within‑round change.
  • Tests: Mann–Whitney U (contributions), Fisher’s exact (success), OLS regressions to model contribution dynamics with covariates: SVO indicators, prior round success, group size, prior contribution, within‑round revision, number of interactions, treatment indicators.
  • Regression specifications included separate models for round‑to‑round dynamics and round 1 to isolate initial influence.

Implications for AI Economics

• Dual‑use externalities and market risks:
  • AI agents capable of personalized persuasion can meaningfully alter public‑goods provision, creating both positive market opportunities (tools to foster cooperation) and significant negative externalities (tools to erode cooperation). The asymmetric potency of antisocial framing suggests downside risks may dominate if misuse is possible.
  • Firms deploying persuasive AI in domains with public‑good characteristics (climate action, vaccination campaigns, civic participation, shared infrastructure) produce spillovers that are not internalized in private decisions; regulators and platform owners should account for these externalities.
• Policy and governance implications:
  • Need for guardrails around persuasive personalization: transparency (disclosure of AI persuasion), consent, limits on directionality (preventing automated exculpatory/selfish persuasion in sensitive domains), and auditing of personalization logic.
  • Monitoring and enforcement: platforms that provide or host LLM assistants should log and audit persuasive content, particularly when interventions target group behavior with public‑good implications.
  • Liability & incentives: allocate responsibility for harms from persuasive interventions (misinformation, undermining cooperation) — e.g., platform liability, developer obligations to prevent exploitative framing.
• Design and market strategy for socially beneficial AI:
  • Short duration of cooperative gains suggests products should focus on sustained engagement strategies (repeated interventions, institution‑level nudges, norm reinforcement) rather than one‑off personalized messages.
  • Combining persuasive AI with structural remedies (e.g., institutional incentives, transparency about group outcomes, enforcement mechanisms) may be required to produce durable cooperation.
• Research implications for economics of AI:
  • The asymmetric effectiveness of prosocial vs antisocial persuasion calls for theoretical models of strategic deployment of persuasive AI in collective‑action games (e.g., equilibrium analysis with targeted messaging and heterogeneous agents).
  • Empirical agenda: field experiments, longer horizons, real monetary/environmental stakes, and studies across different institutional contexts to quantify welfare impacts, distributional consequences, and equilibrium shifts in market/platform behavior.
• Practical caution:
  • Even if initial prosocial nudges can raise contributions, the fragility of their effect means overreliance on personalized AI nudges could produce illusory gains; policymakers and organizations should weigh short‑lived behavioral changes against the risk of persistent harm from malicious configurations.

Limitations (to bear in mind) - Lab‑style online experiment with fictional flood framing and limited rounds — external validity to real‑world, high‑stakes collective actions is uncertain. - SVO classification coverage incomplete (no competitive class present), and LLM model details/variants were not explored systematically. - Short time horizon — persistence beyond five rounds is unknown.

Overall, the study highlights both opportunity and risk: personalized LLM persuasion can shift cooperative behavior, but its effects are fragile and the technology can more easily and persistently undermine cooperation when configured to do so. Economic policy and product design should treat persuasive AI as a force with asymmetrical social impact that requires governance and careful integration into institutions.