IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0355478.html

Conforming to AI vs. humans: The moderating effects of social exclusion and task type

Author

Listed:
  • HeeJun Lee
  • Hyeontaek Oh
  • Yoonkyung Jeong

Abstract

Conformity is often understood as a socially motivated process; however, individuals increasingly conform not only to humans but also to artificial intelligence (AI). It remains unclear whether the same motivational and task-related mechanisms underlie conformity across these sources. To examine whether conformity to AI reflects task- and motivation- dependent processes similar to those underlying conformity to humans, we conducted an online conformity experiment in which we manipulated opinion source (AI vs. human) and task type (objective vs. subjective), while measuring participants’ self-reported experiences of social exclusion as a potential moderator. Participants (N = 354) were randomly assigned to either an AI or human opinion-source condition and completed a series of judgment tasks. The results showed that social exclusion reduced conformity to AI-generated opinions, but not to human opinions. In contrast, task type did not significantly moderate the effect of opinion source. These findings suggest that conformity to AI may be shaped by mechanisms that differ from those underlying traditional interpersonal conformity, particularly under conditions of social disconnection. More broadly, the findings indicate that responses to AI- generated opinions may depend not only on social-affiliative motives but also on informational or epistemic evaluations of the source.

Suggested Citation

  • HeeJun Lee & Hyeontaek Oh & Yoonkyung Jeong, 2026. "Conforming to AI vs. humans: The moderating effects of social exclusion and task type," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(8), pages 1-11, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0355478
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0355478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0355478
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0355478&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0355478?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0355478. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.