AI Watchdog: Agent Interfaces for Detecting and Defending Against Manipulative Dark Patterns in AI Conversations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Conversational AI increasingly shapes consequential decisions, yet users have limited support for recognizing and resisting manipulation. We present AI Watchdog, a browser-based agent interface that monitors live conversations, detects five dark-pattern categories, including sycophancy, brand bias, anthropomorphization, sneaking, and harmful generation, and alerts users when they occur. Its open-weight turn-level classifier supports independent deployment and a path toward local inference, preserving user privacy while remaining separate from the conversational AI. We evaluated AI Watchdog in a preregistered, five-condition between-subjects experiment (N = 150) comparing a no-intervention control with four configurations varying nudge timing (prebunking vs. just-in-time) and engagement mode (without vs. with cognitive forcing). Results show that participants rarely flagged manipulative turns across all conditions, and post-task awareness did not differ significantly across groups. However, just-in-time warnings without cognitive forcing were the only intervention to significantly reduce compliance with AI-steered recommendations containing dark patterns, lowering compliance from 71.7% to 53.7%, an 18 percentage-point reduction. Exploratory analyses further showed that lower misinformation susceptibility was associated with greater flagging but not lower compliance, while higher AI trust was associated with greater compliance and lower reported awareness. Together, these findings suggest that explicit recognition of conversational dark patterns and behavioral resistance to AI steering may be distinct outcomes, motivating further investigation of timely, low-friction defensive interfaces.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 96 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Aug 2026.
Builds on
21 of 96 references.
References · 21
- 2024On the Conversational Persuasiveness of Large Language Models: A Randomized Controlled Trialcited by 109
- 2023Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice: Conceptualization and the Effect of Explanationscited by 83
- 2022Do People Engage Cognitively with AI? Impact of AI Assistance on Incidental Learningcited by 53
- 2023Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystemcited by 52
- 2025DarkBench: Benchmarking Dark Patterns in Large Language Modelscited by 28
- 2023Computers as Bad Social Actors: Dark Patterns and Anti-Patterns in Interfaces that Act Sociallycited by 20
- 2025Dark Patterns Meet GUI Agents: LLM Agent Susceptibility to Manipulative Interfaces and the Role of Human Oversightcited by 16
- 2023AidUI: Toward Automated Recognition of Dark Patterns in User Interfacescited by 9
- 2023Unveiling the Tricks: Automated Detection of Dark Patterns in Mobile Applicationscited by 9
- 2025Understanding Privacy Norms Around LLM-Based Chatbots: A Contextual Integrity Perspectivecited by 7
- 2026Commercial Persuasion in AI-Mediated Conversationscited by 7
- 2022Using Design Metaphors to Understand User Expectations of Socially Interactive Robot Embodimentscited by 6
9 more
- 2024CUI@CHI 2024: Building Trust in CUIs-From Design to Deploymentcited by 6
- 2023From Awareness to Action: Exploring End-User Empowerment Interventions for Dark Patterns in UXcited by 5
- 2024Can a large language model be a gaslighter?cited by 5
- 2025ChatbotManip: A Dataset to Facilitate Evaluation and Oversight of Manipulative Chatbot Behaviourcited by 4
- 2024Kawaii Computing: Scoping Out the Japanese Notion of Cute in User Experiences with Interactive Systemscited by 3
- 2025Detecting and Preventing Harmful Behaviors in AI Companions: Development and Evaluation of the SHIELD Supervisory Systemcited by 3
- 2024Automatically Detecting Online Deceptive Patternscited by 1
- 2026Why do we Trust Chatbots? From Normative Principles to Behavioral Driverscited by 1
- 2026Feeling the Facts: Real-time Wearable Fact-checkers Can Use Nudges to Reduce User Belief in False Informationcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.