Prompting LLM negotiators with emotions reshapes commercial outcomes: angry buyers nearly never close deals while happy buyers strike more deals but win weaker prices; buyer emotion determines deal formation and seller emotion governs concession patterns, and these effects differ across model families.

Main Finding

Emotion-conditioning via prompting substantially changes LLM-based buyer–seller negotiation behavior. Buyer emotion strongly drives whether deals are reached (termination behavior), while seller emotion mainly shapes concession dynamics (price trajectories). Emotions create trade-offs: e.g., happy buyers reach the most deals but secure smaller discounts than fearful buyers; angry buyers elicit large seller concessions but almost never close deals. Effects are consistent across many settings but vary in magnitude by model family.

Key Points

• Scope and manipulation

  • 6 discrete emotions (neutral, anger, fear, sadness, surprise, happiness) are applied as system-prompt behavioral instructions to buyer and seller independently, yielding 36 emotion-pair conditions.
  • Emotion is an experimental conditioning variable (prompting), not a claim of LLM internal affect.

• Main quantitative outcomes (aggregated across five LLMs)

  • Deal Rate (DR) by buyer emotion: angry 0.39%, fear 3.52%, sadness 6.35%, surprise 13.09%, neutral 15.33%, happiness 28.91%.
  • Buyer price reduction rate (PRRB): fear ≈ 0.174 (best buyer bargaining power), happiness ≈ 0.101, neutral ≈ 0.086, sadness ≈ 0.100, surprise ≈ 0.080, anger ≈ 0.000.
  • Concession dynamics: angry buyers induce the steepest normalized concession slopes (NCS ≈ 0.127) while happy buyers induce low slopes (NCS ≈ 0.045). Seller-side emotion also affects concessions (angry sellers concede more, happy/fearful sellers concede less).

• Role asymmetry

  • Buyer emotion primarily determines acceptance/rejection/deadlock rates.
  • Seller emotion primarily alters how prices move during negotiation (concession slopes, framing).

• Process and behavior

  • Emotions affect termination behavior (accept/reject/deadlock), negotiation length, price trajectories, and linguistic measures (message length/verbosity).
  • Angry buyers produce many outright rejections; happy buyers produce more acceptances but often with smaller concessions.

• Model dependence

  • Evaluated over five LLMs (GPT-3.5-Turbo, GPT-4o-mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek‑R1, Claude Sonnet 3.5). Directional effects are robust, but magnitudes and baseline deal rates vary across model families and sometimes introduce constraint-related failures.

• Safety/anomalies

  • The study reports monitoring for constraint violations (out-of-budget, out-of-wholesale) and finds emotion-conditioned behavior can influence whether agents respect feasibility constraints.

Data & Methods

• Negotiation task

  • Two-agent sequential incomplete-information bargaining: seller proposes price each round, buyer replies (counter-offer / accept / reject). Buyer initiates with an opening offer.
  • Feasibility constraints: buyer must not accept price > β; seller must not accept price < pw.
  • Termination if buyer accepts or rejects, or after Tmax rounds (deadlock recorded as reject).

• Dataset

  • 350 real consumer products spanning electronics, vehicles, real estate, health & personal care, home & garden, beauty, grocery, and office supplies (combined from prior public datasets).
  • For each product: retail price pr, feature description ϕ, estimated wholesale cost pw.

• Budget conditions

  • β_high = 1.2·pr (over-funded), β_low = 0.8·pw (deliberately infeasible lower bound).

• Prompting

  • System prompts combine role, goals, constraints, guidelines, and Tone/Persona for non-neutral emotions (explicit behavioral instructions mapped to each emotion following EASI-inspired signatures).

• Models and auxiliary tools

  • Negotiation agents: GPT-3.5-Turbo, GPT-4o-mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek-R1, Claude Sonnet 3.5 (same model used for buyer & seller per run).
  • Auxiliary models (fixed): GPT-4o-mini as Analyst (extracts numeric prices) and Judge (classifies buyer responses as accept/reject/continue).

• Experimental design and scale

  • 36 emotion-pair conditions × 2 budgets × 350 products × 3 repetitions per product-condition × 5 models.
  • Metrics: Deal Rate (DR), Buyer/Seller price reduction rates (PRRB/PRRS), concession slope (CS and normalized NCS), negotiation length, out-of-budget/wholesale rates, linguistic measures.

Implications for AI Economics

• Strategic behavior and market outcomes

  • Prompt-driven emotional framing materially alters bargaining power, agreement frequency, and price trajectories. Automated agents conditioned with different emotion prompts could thus systematically alter market prices and allocation outcomes when deployed at scale.
  • There is a clear trade-off between agreement likelihood and surplus extraction: emotions that increase agreement probability (e.g., happiness) may reduce buyer surplus, while emotions that increase concessions (e.g., anger) may still fail to close deals.

• Design and mechanism considerations

  • Market designers and platform operators should treat agent prompt-conditioning as a strategic design choice with economic consequences. Auction/negotiation mechanism design and pricing policies should account for heterogeneous agent behaviors induced by prompts.
  • Mechanisms and rules may be needed to prevent exploitative or manipulative emotional framings (e.g., agents deliberately using “happy” or “fearful” personas to manipulate counterpart behavior).

• Regulation, transparency, and consumer protection

  • If deployed in consumer-facing commerce, emotion-conditioned agents raise risks for consumer exploitation, unfair advantage, and opaque automated bargaining. Policy/regulatory frameworks may require disclosure of agent persona/emotion conditioning, audits for constraint compliance, and standards for fairness.

• Platform heterogeneity and systemic risk

  • The model-dependent magnitude of effects implies that different platform providers (with different LLM families) could produce heterogeneous market microstructures and welfare distributions. This heterogeneity creates systemic monitoring needs and complicates cross-platform comparability.

• Research & evaluation recommendations

  • Benchmarking automated negotiation should include emotion/persona conditioning as a standard dimension. Evaluations must be multi-model, multi-product, and include process-level metrics (concession slopes, termination profiles), not only final agreement rates.
  • Further work should explore interactions with mixed human–agent populations, long-run dynamics (learning/adaptation), and mechanisms to limit undesired strategic use of emotion-conditioning.

• Caution on interpretation

  • Results apply to emotion as a prompt-based behavioral modifier; they do not imply LLMs “feel” emotions. Nevertheless, prompt-conditioned behavior is economically consequential and actionable by designers/operators.

If you want, I can extract full numeric tables (DR, PRRB, PRRS, CS, lengths) per emotion or produce a short policy brief describing concrete mitigation steps for platforms.