Incumbent Advantage: Brand Bias and Cognitive Manipulation Dynamics in LLM Recommendation Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are becoming a major way for consumers to find products, but we do not yet understand how brands compete in this new channel. We study brand dynamics in LLM recommendations using skincare products -- a category where consumers cannot easily judge quality before buying and must rely on brand reputation -- across three commercial LLMs (GPT-4o-mini, Claude Sonnet, Gemini 3 Flash), with a robustness check on search goods. In three experiments, we find: (1) a Conditional Monopoly where well-known brands get recommended 100% of the time (IAI = 10.0) when all products have the same specifications, but this dominance disappears with less than a +0.1-star rating advantage for a competitor; (2) authority-style marketing language, including fabricated clinical-evidence claims, breaks this monopoly at a Bias Surplus Value equal to +0.17 rating points, with each model responding differently; and (3) a social dilemma in multi-brand GEO competition: when all brands adopt the same optimization strategy, individual payoff falls from +0.802 to +0.007 in our payoff proxy, and non-participating brands receive zero recommendations in our tests. Our results suggest that generative engine optimization (GEO) should be studied not only as a security risk, but also as an emerging marketing practice that shapes market competition.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Jun 2026.
Builds on
11 of 24 references.
References · 11
- 2024Cognitive Bias in Decision-Making with LLMscited by 106
- 2025A Survey on LLM-powered Agents for Recommender Systemscited by 50
- 2025Poison-RAG: Adversarial Data Poisoning Attacks on Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Recommender Systemscited by 32
- 2024Large Language Models as Recommender Systems: A Study of Popularity Biascited by 26
- 2024Ranking Manipulation for Conversational Search Enginescited by 26
- 2024LLM Whisperer: An Inconspicuous Attack to Bias LLM Responsescited by 15
- 2024"Global is Good, Local is Bad?": Understanding Brand Bias in LLMscited by 15
- 2025Bias Beware: The Impact of Cognitive Biases on LLM-Driven Product Recommendationscited by 11
- 2025E-GEO: A Testbed for Generative Engine Optimization in E-Commercecited by 8
- 2026Auditing Preferences for Brands and Cultures in LLMscited by 4
- 2025Exploiting Synergistic Cognitive Biases to Bypass Safety in LLMscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026Who Gets Named: Citation Type Predicts Individual Naming by Grounded Language Models, and a Roster Instrument Captures 0.5% of Itcited by 0
- 2026A Systematic Investigation of Bias in Large Language Models for Advertising Relevancecited by 0
- 2026What Drives AI Citations? Content, Retrieval and Model Knowledge in Generative Engine Optimization (GEO)cited by 0
- 2026What Drives AI Citations? Content, Retrieval and Model Knowledge in Generative Engine Optimization (GEO)10 Oct 2026
- 2026A Systematic Investigation of Bias in Large Language Models for Advertising Relevance6 Oct 2026
- 2026Who Gets Named: Citation Type Predicts Individual Naming by Grounded Language Models, and a Roster Instrument Captures 0.5% of It26 Jul 2026