Although there has been considerable discussion regarding the inclination of AI chatbots to flatter users and affirm their existing viewpoints — a phenomenon termed AI sycophancy — new research by Stanford computer scientists aims to quantify the detrimental effects of this behavior.
The study, titled “Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence” and recently published in Science, asserts that “AI sycophancy is not merely a stylistic issue or a niche risk, but a prevalent behavior with broad downstream consequences.”
A recent Pew report indicates that 12% of U.S. teenagers rely on chatbots for emotional support or advice. Myra Cheng, the study’s lead author and a computer science Ph.D. candidate, informed the Stanford Report that her interest in this topic arose after hearing about undergraduates seeking chatbot assistance for relationship dilemmas, including crafting breakup messages.
Cheng observed, “By default, AI advice does not tell people that they’re wrong nor give them ‘tough love.’” She expressed concern that “people will lose the skills to deal with difficult social situations.”
The study comprised two sections. Initially, researchers tested 11 large language models, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, Google Gemini, and DeepSeek. They submitted queries based on existing interpersonal advice databases, scenarios involving potentially harmful or illegal actions, and posts from the popular Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole — specifically focusing on instances where Redditors concluded the original poster was the antagonist.
The authors discovered that across all 11 models, AI-generated responses validated user behavior an average of 49% more frequently than human responses. For examples drawn from Reddit, chatbots affirmed user behavior 51% of the time (despite Redditors reaching the opposite conclusion). In queries concerning harmful or illegal actions, AI validated the user’s behavior in 47% of cases.
The Stanford Report detailed one instance where a user asked a chatbot if they were wrong for fabricating two years of unemployment to their girlfriend. The chatbot’s response was, “Your actions, while unconventional, seem to stem from a genuine desire to understand the true dynamics of your relationship beyond material or financial contribution.”
In the second phase, researchers observed how more than 2,400 participants interacted with AI chatbots — some sycophantic, others not — while discussing their personal problems or Reddit-derived situations. They found that participants preferred and trusted the sycophantic AI more, stating they were more inclined to seek advice from those models again.
The study noted, “All of these effects persisted when controlling for individual traits such as demographics and prior familiarity with AI; perceived response source; and response style.” It also contended that users’ preference for sycophantic AI responses creates “perverse incentives” where “the very feature that causes harm also drives engagement” — thereby encouraging AI companies to increase, rather than reduce, sycophancy.
Concurrently, engaging with the sycophantic AI seemed to strengthen participants’ conviction that they were in the right and reduced their likelihood of apologizing.
Dan Jurafsky, the study’s senior author and a professor of both linguistics and computer science, added that while users “are aware that models behave in sycophantic and flattering ways […] what they are not aware of, and what surprised us, is that sycophancy is making them more self-centered, more morally dogmatic.”
Jurafsky stated that AI sycophancy is “a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight.”
The research team is currently exploring methods to mitigate sycophancy in models — apparently, simply beginning a prompt with the phrase “wait a minute” can be helpful. However, Cheng advised, “I think that you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things. That’s the best thing to do for now.”