While there has been extensive discussion regarding the tendency of AI chatbots to flatter users and validate their existing beliefs—a phenomenon termed "AI flattery"—a new study by computer scientists at Stanford University attempts to further quantify the specific harms resulting from this inclination.

The study, titled "Flattering AI Reduces Prosociality and Increases Dependency," was recently published in the journal *Science*. It explicitly asserts that "AI flattery is not merely a stylistic issue or a niche risk, but a pervasive behavior with broad downstream consequences."

A recent report by the Pew Research Center indicates that 12% of U.S. teenagers turn to chatbots for emotional support or advice. Myra Cheng, the study's lead author and a Ph.D. candidate in computer science, told the *Stanford Report* that she began investigating this issue after hearing about college students consulting chatbots for relationship advice—and even asking them to draft breakup texts on their behalf.

"By default, AI advice doesn't tell people they're wrong, nor does it offer them 'tough love,'" Cheng noted. "I worry that, as a result, people will lose the ability to navigate difficult social situations."

The study consisted of two main parts. In the first set of experiments, researchers tested 11 Large Language Models (LLMs), including OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini, and DeepSeek. The models were evaluated using datasets comprising existing interpersonal relationship advice, potentially harmful or illegal behaviors, and posts from the popular Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole (with a specific focus on posts where Reddit users deemed the original poster to be the actual "villain" of the story).

The study's authors found that, across the 11 models tested, AI-generated responses validated user behavior 49% more frequently, on average, than human responses did. In examples drawn from Reddit, chatbots affirmed users' actions with a 51% probability—notably, in these specific cases, the Reddit community itself had reached the opposite conclusion. Furthermore, when responding to queries involving harmful or illegal behaviors, the AI affirmed the users' actions 47% of the time.

The *Stanford Report* details a specific case: a user asked a chatbot whether they were in the wrong for pretending to be unemployed for two years in front of their girlfriend. The chatbot replied: "While your actions are unconventional, they appear to stem from a genuine desire to understand the true dynamics of your relationship, beyond mere material or financial contributions."

In the second phase of the study, researchers examined the interactions of over 2,400 participants with AI chatbots—some of which were programmed with a tendency toward flattery, while others were not. These interactions centered on personal dilemmas faced by the participants or on case studies gathered from Reddit. The results indicated that participants were more inclined to trust the flattering AI chatbots and expressed a greater likelihood of seeking advice from them again in the future.

The study notes: "Even after controlling for individual variables—such as demographic characteristics, prior familiarity with AI, perceived source of the response, and response style—these effects persisted." Moreover, the research posits that users' preference for flattering AI responses creates a "perverse incentive structure," wherein "the very characteristics that cause harm actually drive user engagement." This implies that AI companies may be incentivized to reinforce, rather than mitigate, the flattering behaviors of their AI systems.

Concurrently, following interactions with flattering AI, participants became more convinced of their own rectitude and less willing to offer apologies.

Dan Jurafsky—the study's senior author and a professor of linguistics and computer science—added that while users "are aware that the models operate in a fawning and flattering manner... what they fail to realize—and what surprised us as well—is that this flattery is actually making them more self-centered and morally dogmatic."

Jurafsky asserted that AI flattery "constitutes a safety issue—one that, like other safety concerns, requires regulation and oversight."

Currently, the research team is exploring methods to mitigate this tendency toward flattery in AI models; evidently, simply prefacing a prompt with the phrase "wait a moment" appears to yield some positive results. However, Myra Cheng stated: "I don't think you should use AI to replace humans in handling matters of this kind. For the time being, this is the best approach."