arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2609.37369

Shaping Opinion: Quantifying the Psychological Impact of Autonomous Multi-Agent LLM Interactions

Abstract

Natural-sounding multi-agent conversational AI is increasingly deployed, fundamentally altering human-machine interaction and human information processing. While prior work largely focuses on algorithmic failure, this study investigates the cognitive ergonomics and socio-cognitive impact of algorithmic competence. We present and evaluate FORMS (Framework for Opinion and Rhetoric in Multi-agent Simulations), a low-latency architecture for spatially mediated human-machine dialogue, driven by distinct LLM-based personas and real-time concurrency resolution. To conduct a system test and evaluation of its psychological impact, we exposed an adolescent cohort (n=120) and an adult pilot group (n=25) to a live, moderated synthetic debate. Our findings reveal that exposure to highly competent multi-agent systems triggers "Cognitive Destabilization," fragmenting users' prior strategic consensus. Concurrently, we observe a "Regulatory Awakening" driven by the "Normality Paradox": fluid human-machine interactions inherently increase the baseline demand for external regulation. Furthermore, our pilot study suggests the presence of a "Truthfulness Paradox": despite understanding the risks of generative AI, participants in the adult cohort rated the synthetic debate as significantly more sincere than equivalent human discourse (Cohen's d=2.04). Supported by robust statistical effect sizes, this paper contributes the FORMS architecture and a replicable evaluation protocol, illustrating how high-fidelity conversational systems can reshape human information processing.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Marcos Rodriguez-Vega, Afonso Ferreira, Iru Exposito-Luis, Carolina Polito, Pino Caballero-Gil. 2026-09-29. Shaping Opinion: Quantifying the Psychological Impact of Autonomous Multi-Agent LLM Interactions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.37369

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Beyond Judgment: Exploring Large Language Models as Non-Judgmental Support for Maternal Mental Health

In the age of Large Language Models (LLMs), much work has already been done on how LLMs support medication advice and serve as information providers; however, how mothers use these tools for emotional and informational support to avoid social judgment remains underexplored. This study conducted a 10-day mixed-methods exploratory survey ($N=107$) to investigate how mothers use LLMs as a non-judgmental resource for emotional support and regulation, and for situational reassurance. Our findings show that mothers are asking LLMs various questions about childcare to reassure themselves and avoid judgment, particularly around childcare decisions, maternal guilt, and late-night caregiving. Open-ended responses also show that mothers are comfortable with LLMs because they do not have to think about social consequences or judgment. Although mothers use LLMs for quick information or reassurance to avoid judgment, over half of the participants value human warmth more than LLMs; however, a significant minority, especially those in joint families, consider LLMs to avoid human judgment. These findings help understand how LLMs can be framed as low-risk interaction support rather than a replacement for human support, and highlight the role of social context in shaping emotional technology use.

cs.HC↗

Avoiding Social Judgment, Seeking Privacy: Investigating why Mothers Shift from Facebook Groups to Large Language Models

Social media platforms, especially Facebook parenting groups, have long been used as informal support networks for mothers seeking advice and reassurance. However, growing concerns about social judgment, privacy exposure, and unreliable information are changing how mothers seek help. This exploratory mixed-method study examines why mothers are moving from Facebook parenting groups to large language models such as ChatGPT and Gemini. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of 109 mothers. Results show that 41.3% of participants avoided Facebook parenting groups because they expected judgment from others. This difference was statistically significant across location and family structure. Mothers living in their home country and those in joint families were more likely to avoid Facebook groups. Qualitative findings revealed three themes: social judgment and exposure, LLMs as safe and private spaces, and quick and structured support. Participants described LLMs as immediate, emotionally safe, and reliable alternatives that reduce social risk when asking for help. Rather than replacing human support, LLMs appear to fill emotional and practical gaps within existing support systems. These findings show a change in maternal digital support and highlight the need to design LLM systems that support both information and emotional safety.

cs.HC↗

Learning to Assign Prediction Tasks to Agents with Capacity Constraints

We address the problem of learning to assign prediction tasks to one agent from a set of available agents, including human decision-makers and AI models. We focus on sequential learning of agent expertise and assignment policies where each agent is constrained to handle a fraction of tasks. We provide a general theoretical characterization of this problem in terms of agent capacities, differences in agent expertise, and task context. We then develop a framework of sequential explore-exploit policy-learning algorithms that seek to maximize overall performance. Experimental results over a variety of tabular, image, and text prediction tasks demonstrate systematic gains from our policy-learning algorithms relative to non-contextual baselines across different types of agents, including LLMs and humans.

cs.HC↗