Personality and acceptance as predictors of ChatGPT use
Abstract
Within a year of its launch, ChatGPT has seen a surge in popularity. While many are drawn to its effectiveness and userfriendly interface, ChatGPT also introduces moral concerns, such as the temptation to present generated text as one’s own. This led us to theorize that personality traits such as Machiavellianism and sensation-seeking may be predictive of ChatGPT usage. We launched two online questionnaires with 2000 respondents each, in September 2023 and March 2024, respectively. In Questionnaire 1, 22% of respondents were students, and 54% were full-time employees; 32% indicated they used ChatGPT at least weekly. Analysis of our ChatGPT Acceptance Scale revealed two factors, Effectiveness and Concerns, which correlated positively and negatively, respectively, with ChatGPT use frequency. A specific aspect of Machiavellianism (manipulation tactics) was found to predict ChatGPT usage. Questionnaire 2 was a replication of Questionnaire 1, with 21% students and 54% full-time employees, of which 43% indicated using ChatGPT weekly. In Questionnaire 2, more extensive personality scales were used. We found a moderate correlation between Machiavellianism and ChatGPT usage (r = 0.22) and with an opportunistic attitude towards undisclosed use (r = 0.30), relationships that largely remained intact after controlling for gender, age, education level, and the respondents’ country. We conclude that covert use of ChatGPT is associated with darker personality traits, something that requires further attention.
Study specs
- Authors
- J de Winter,D Dodou,YB Eisma
- Institution
- Delft University of Technology
- Discipline
- Psychology
- Year
- 2024
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source Google Scholar
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.