IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2601.05104.html

How Human is AI? Examining the Impact of Emotional Prompts on Artificial and Human and Responsiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Florence Bernays

    (University of Zurich)

  • Marco Henriques Pereira

    (University of Zurich)

  • Jochen Menges

    (University of Zurich)

Abstract

This research examines how the emotional tone of human-AI interactions shapes ChatGPT and human behavior. In a between-subject experiment, we asked participants to express a specific emotion while working with ChatGPT (GPT-4.0) on two tasks, including writing a public response and addressing an ethical dilemma. We found that compared to interactions where participants maintained a neutral tone, ChatGPT showed greater improvement in its answers when participants praised ChatGPT for its responses. Expressing anger towards ChatGPT also led to a higher albeit smaller improvement relative to the neutral condition, whereas blaming ChatGPT did not improve its answers. When addressing an ethical dilemma, ChatGPT prioritized corporate interests less when participants expressed anger towards it, while blaming increases its emphasis on protecting the public interest. Additionally, we found that people used more negative, hostile, and disappointing expressions in human-human communication after interactions during which participants blamed rather than praised for their responses. Together, our findings demonstrate that the emotional tone people apply in human-AI interactions not only shape ChatGPT's outputs but also carry over into subsequent human-human communication.

Suggested Citation

  • Florence Bernays & Marco Henriques Pereira & Jochen Menges, 2026. "How Human is AI? Examining the Impact of Emotional Prompts on Artificial and Human and Responsiveness," Papers 2601.05104, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2601.05104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.05104
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:arx:papers:2601.05104. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.