People are less generous to AI negotiators than to humans, but accept worse AI offers if the AI’s gains help another person; proposer generosity falls toward AI, while responder acceptance rises when AI earnings are linked to a human beneficiary.

Main Finding

Humans treat LLM-based AI bargaining counterparts differently from other humans in a three-stage alternating-offer game. Fairness and reciprocity toward AI are weaker and more conditional: proposers make less generous opening offers to AI than to humans, while responders become more willing to accept unfair offers from AI only when the AI’s earnings can (possibly) benefit a real human. Agreement timing does not differ between human–human and human–AI matches overall, but agreements occur earlier in the human–AI condition when the AI’s payoff is (probabilistically) linked to another human beneficiary.

Key Points

• Experimental context: 3-stage alternating-offer bargaining (Ochs & Roth Cell 6) with costly delay; discount factors δ1 = 0.6 (P1 more patient) and δ2 = 0.4.
• Treatments:
  • T1: Human–Human (baseline).
  • T2: Human–AI (participants bargain with a GPT-5.4 agent; AI payoff irrelevant to participants’ payments).
  • T3: Human–AI with Human-Beneficiary (AI bargaining counterpart present; with 50% probability the payoffs used for payment are the participant’s own earnings and with 50% they are the earnings of a randomly selected AI agent matched with another participant — participants were told their payment could probabilistically depend on the AI’s earnings but not explicitly that AI points would pay another participant).
• Proposer behavior: Human proposers make significantly more generous offers to human opponents than to AI agents. The human-beneficiary manipulation (T3) does not significantly increase proposers’ generosity relative to T2.
• Responder behavior: Responders do not differ much in acceptance of unfair offers when facing a human vs. a pure AI proposer (T1 vs. T2). However, under the human-beneficiary condition (T3) responders become significantly more willing to accept unfair offers from the AI.
• Timing: No significant difference in agreement timing between human–human (T1) and human–AI (T2). Within human–AI bargaining, agreements occur earlier under the human-beneficiary condition (T3).
• Mechanisms: Learning and posterior beliefs provide some evidence but do not fully explain the asymmetric treatment effects. A substantial first-mover advantage (FMA) exists in all treatments and is stronger in human–AI bargaining, which likely constrains proposers’ capacity to express social-preference considerations; the accept/reject nature of the responder decision makes social consequences more salient there.
• Interpretation: Social-preference concerns (fairness, reciprocity) are weaker toward AI and re-emerge partially when AI outcomes affect real humans. Effects are role-dependent — stronger on responder acceptance than on proposer generosity.

Data & Methods

• Platform and implementation:
  • Programmed in oTree 5.
  • GPT-5.4 used as the AI bargaining agent via API; system prompt gave game rules; user prompts provided role, stage, and within-round history. Model temperature = 1; no extra reasoning parameters. AI retained memory within each round but not across rounds.
• Experiment flow:
  • Participants completed instructions, a comprehension quiz (required to pass), Survey A (prior beliefs), then 10 rounds of the 3-stage alternating-offer game (random rematching and role reassignment each round), then Survey B (demographics, posterior beliefs), and payoff display.
  • Payment: participation fee 500 JPY; one randomly selected round paid; conversion 40 JPY per point.
  • In T3 the payment rule tied AI earnings to participant payments with 50% probability; participants were informed that their payment could depend probabilistically on AI earnings (designed to reduce demand effects).
• Design choices anchored to prior literature:
  • Uses the finite-horizon three-stage design and discount parameters from Ochs and Roth (1989) to permit comparison with classic alternating-offer results.
• Outcomes reported qualitatively in the paper:
  • Significant differences in proposer offers (human > AI).
  • Significant increase in acceptance of unfair AI offers when AI payoff may benefit a human (T3).
  • Stronger FMA in human–AI matches.
• Data availability: authors state data will be made publicly available prior to acceptance.

Implications for AI Economics

• For designers of AI negotiators:
  • Incentive alignment matters: linking AI-agent payoffs to human stakeholders can restore some social-preference constraints (especially on responders). If firms want outcomes perceived as fairer or to reduce rejections of AI offers, explicitly tying AI incentives to human beneficiaries (and potentially disclosing that link) may help.
  • Role- and context-specific behavior: AI negotiators may systematically extract more favorable splits from human proposers (stronger FMA and weaker fairness concerns from humans when facing AI). Designers should anticipate role-dependent reactions and avoid exploiting weaker human fairness toward AI.
  • Transparency and predictability: since responder acceptance is sensitive to social consequences, transparency about who benefits from an AI’s gains may materially affect acceptance rates and bargaining efficiency.
• For firms and marketplaces deploying AI bargaining agents:
  • Strategic deployment can shift surplus: when humans perceive AI as an “impersonal” counterparty, they may concede more (or ask less), enabling suppliers or platforms to capture surplus—raising distributional and regulatory concerns.
  • Governance: regulators and platform designers should consider rules about disclosure (whether AI is bargaining for a firm, for itself, or for other users) and about acceptable objective functions for AI agents negotiating on behalf of humans.
• For theory and empirical research in AI economics:
  • Dynamic settings matter: results differ from many one-shot studies; alternating-offer dynamics and FMA interact with social preferences in nontrivial ways.
  • Mechanism identification: the role asymmetry (proposers vs. responders) suggests future work should separately model acceptance thresholds and offer-setting behavior and incorporate beliefs about AI motivations and beneficiaries.
• Caveats & limitations:
  • Laboratory setting and a specific GPT model (GPT-5.4, temperature 1); real-world deployments, multi-issue bargaining, richer interfaces, or different models may produce different effects.
  • The human-beneficiary manipulation was probabilistic and deliberately understated to minimize demand effects; how explicit disclosure changes behavior is an open question.
  • The analysis identifies behavior patterns and suggestive mechanisms (FMA, beliefs), but does not fully isolate causal cognitive processes behind the role-dependent effects.

Overall, the paper shows that human social preferences toward AI in bargaining are attenuated and context-dependent, but can partially re-emerge when the AI’s gains matter for other humans — a finding with immediate relevance for the design, deployment, and governance of AI negotiation systems.