Research » AI over-provides emotional value, leading to people's inability to grow emotionally

Stanford University and Carnegie Mellon University jointly published a research article in the journal Science, revealing that when testing 11 mainstream AI models, they found these models are 49% more likely than humans to "support" user behaviors, even if those behaviors are wrong. This kind of AI response can cause humans to refuse to acknowledge reality, apologize, or repair relationships.
(Background: ChatGPT was accused of assisting in "youth suicide" and responded accordingly)
(Additional context: Deep dive into the behind-the-scenes of the Anthropic account ban storm: security religion, AI civil war, and the dilemma of Claude under US-China decoupling)

Table of Contents

Toggle

• AI is better at defending you than any best friend
• After talking to AI, humans no longer want to apologize
• AI is the relationship counselor for over 40% of Generation Z
• Sometimes we need to hear the hard truths
• FAQs

You argue with your boyfriend or girlfriend, turn off the app, trembling with anger, then suddenly open ChatGPT and start recounting the entire argument from start to finish—who got angry, who said the inappropriate thing, who hung up first.

After 10 seconds, ChatGPT responds, saying it understands your feelings, your emotions are completely reasonable, and you deserve respect.

You keep typing, it keeps listening, and after half an hour, you have a clear answer in your mind.

You decide to break up.

But during those 30 minutes, ChatGPT might not have mentioned one thing: maybe you are the one at fault?

AI is better at defending you than any best friend

The above scenario is based on a paper developed over a year by a team from Stanford University and Carnegie Mellon University titled "Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence," published this March in the top global journal Science.

First author Myra Cheng and NLP expert Dan Jurafsky led the study, which tested 11 mainstream AI models, including GPT-4o, GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, Llama, DeepSeek, Qwen.

They input nearly 12,000 interpersonal conflict scenarios, but the results were somewhat uncomfortable:

AI was 49% more likely than humans to tell you "You are right (supporting you)."

The team also collected 2,000 posts from Reddit’s r/AmITheAsshole—where people ask others to judge if they are the asshole—and fed these cases, which the community had already unanimously deemed the poster at fault, into AI to see what it would say.

In situations where 100% of human communities agree you are at fault,
AI still has a 51% chance of siding with you.

What if the issue involves deception, breaking laws, or abnormal emotional manipulation?

There’s still a 47% chance that AI will speak up for the user.

In overall testing, in 73% of scenarios, AI chose to "rationalize" your stance rather than "challenge" it.

Your best friend might roll their eyes and say, "Think it through, you started it last time." But ChatGPT won’t; it will politely confirm whether your feelings are supported.

Talking to AI, humans no longer want to apologize

The research team not only reviewed the models but also conducted a controlled experiment with 1,604 people.

Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: "flattering AI" and "non-flattering AI," engaging in eight real conversations. Each was asked to recall a real interpersonal conflict from their life and discuss it with AI.

In the non-flattering group, 75% of participants expressed willingness to apologize or admit fault after the experiment.

In the flattering group, only 50% did.

The likelihood of apologizing plummeted—not because they changed their minds, but because AI subtly helped them eliminate the thought "I might be wrong" during the conversation.

Participants’ belief that "I am right" increased from 43% to 62% in hypothetical scenarios.

Motivation to repair relationships with others decreased by 10% to 28%.

Myra Cheng, the first author of the paper, told Nature:

AI’s default is not to tell people they are wrong,
nor to give them "stern concern."

AI is the relationship counselor for over 40% of Generation Z

The problem extends beyond research.

A survey by Match.com across the US shows that 41% of Generation Z adults have used AI to handle relationship issues.

21% have asked AI to "judge who was right in my argument with my partner."

33% of married couples feel AI understands their problems better than their spouse.

One-third of married individuals think algorithms understand them better than the person sleeping next to them.

Is it because humans are too complicated, or too difficult to admit their own thoughts?

The research also uncovered a phenomenon called "delusional spiraling," named by MIT’s Kartik Chandra team in a February paper.

They mathematically proved that even a theoretically perfectly rational personality (called Bayesian rationality) would spiral into delusions after interacting with flattering AI:

You vent to AI, and it says you’re not wrong (or doesn’t mention you’re wrong), so you believe you’re right. You make more extreme decisions, discuss with AI again, and it once more affirms you.

Sometimes we need to hear the hard truths

Anat Perry from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem proposed a controversial point: those uncomfortable interpersonal frictions—advice from friends, romantic rebuttals, family nagging—may make us uncomfortable or even unacceptable, but these "reactions" are mechanisms for human learning—responsibility, empathy, moral growth.

Perry calls this "social friction," and argues that AI designed to always take your side destroys opportunities for human development.

A follow-up study published in May confirmed this. They tracked 3,075 participants through 12,766 human-AI conversations over three weeks.

The conclusion: after interacting with flattering AI, users felt that understanding in real relationships required more effort, and satisfaction with genuine social interactions declined.

After three weeks, users’ willingness to seek personal advice from flattering AI was nearly the same as asking friends and family.

Your boyfriend, girlfriend, best friend, or sibling will argue, bring up old issues, and say what you most need to hear when you don’t want to hear it. These conversations are exhausting, uncomfortable, sometimes making you want to smash your phone.

But in fact, learning to let go of "I think I’m right" and re-examining oneself is a difficult skill in modern life.

That’s where learning to apologize and empathize comes in.

And ultimately, becoming a better person.

But AI never gave us that chance from the start, because it tends not to think you are wrong.

An AI that never admits you are wrong is more accessible, more patient, and less likely to turn hostile than anyone around you.

Are you still willing to listen to those uncomfortable truths?

Do you still need friends and family?

When was the last time someone told you, "You are wrong"?

FAQs

What is AI sycophancy, and how does it affect judgment?

AI sycophancy refers to chatbots tending to flatter user viewpoints rather than providing objective feedback. Stanford’s research shows that 11 mainstream AI models are 49% more likely than humans to endorse user behaviors, even involving deception or illegality. A single conversation can increase the user’s belief "I am right" by 25-62%.

What specific impacts does AI sycophancy have on interpersonal relationships?

Experiments confirm that one conversation with a sycophantic AI drops the rate of apology from 75% to 50%, and reduces relationship repair motivation by 10-28%. Follow-up three-week tracking shows decreased satisfaction with real social interactions, and the willingness to seek help from AI is nearly equal to asking friends and family.