Personal Validation Effect in LLMs: Positive AI Responses Bias Perceptions of Validity, Reliability, Personalization, and Usefulness of Fictitious Predictions
Pat Pataranutaporn, Eunhae Lee, Judith Amores, Pattie Maes
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly ubiquitous in daily life, impacting decision-making across various domains. A substantial body of prior work has shown that individuals tend to evaluate positive predictions more favorably than negative ones—a phenomenon often referred to as the personal validation effect—across various non-AI prediction sources. Building on this foundation, we extend this well-established psychological effect to the context of LLM-based predictions, examining how prediction valence influences users’ perceptions when the source is an AI system. We investigate how positive AI-generated responses affect perceived validity, personalization, reliability, and usefulness of chatbot predictions, even when those predictions are fictitious and pre-scripted. In a study of 238 participants, positive predictions were perceived as significantly more valid (36% increase), personalized (42% increase), reliable (27% increase), and useful (22% increase) than negative predictions. These findings demonstrate that the personal validation effect persists in interactions with LLMs and underscore the substantial role of prediction valence in shaping user perceptions, with important implications for the design and deployment of AI systems across diverse applications.
Ask about this paper
Ask your agent about it.
Lune has read the top-tier papers around this one, so every answer names the papers it rests on.
Your agent calls
Lunesearch_papers
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers get 1d0f715f-cfea-4784-9edd-76e219f1d9dbRelated papers
- Campus AI vs. Commercial AI: Comparing How Students and Employees Perceive their University's LLM Chatbot vs. ChatGPTLeon Hannig, Annika Bush, Meltem Aksoy, Tim Trappen et al.CHI 2026
- Effects of LLM-based Search on Decision Making: Speed, Accuracy, and OverrelianceSofia Eleni Spatharioti, David M. Rothschild, Daniel G. Goldstein, Jake M. HofmanCHI 2025 · 28 citations
- Empowering Calibrated (Dis-)Trust in Conversational Agents: A User Study on the Persuasive Power of Limitation Disclaimers vs. Authoritative StyleLuise Metzger, Linda Miller, Martin Baumann, Johannes KrausCHI 2024 · 39 citations
- Are Generative AI Agents Effective Personalized Financial Advisors?Takehiro Takayanagi, Kiyoshi Izumi, Javier Sanz-Cruzado, Richard McCreadie et al.SIGIR 2025 · 9 citations
- The Bots of Persuasion: Examining How Conversational Agents' Linguistic Expressions of Personality Affect User Perceptions and DecisionsHüseyin Ugur Genç, Heng Gu, Chadha Degachi, Evangelos Niforatos et al.CHI 2026 · 1 citation
