A Dual-Process Perspective on Nudge Susceptibility in LLM-Based GUI Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate
Abstract (arXiv)
LLM-based GUI agents increasingly act on behalf of users in digital environments that were designed with human users in mind. These graphical user interfaces were designed to support, but also deliberately steer, the behaviour and decisions of users. While behavioural biases in the textual outputs of LLMs are well-documented, far less is known about how such influence operates when models act as agents that perceive interfaces and execute decisions---and, in particular, whether the reasoning capabilities increasingly built into these agents make them more robust to it. Drawing on Dual-Process Theory, we empirically investigate whether LLM-based GUI agents are susceptible to automatic (Type 1) and reflective (Type 2) digital nudges, and how their reasoning configuration moderates this susceptibility. In a randomized online shopping experiment with 3,600 agents and a total of 21,600 simulations across six frontier models from three providers, we found that agents were vulnerable to both nudge types. Crucially, the reasoning configuration moderated these effects in opposing directions, reducing susceptibility to automatic default nudges while heightening it to reflective social influence nudges. Extensive reasoning therefore did not make agents more robust but redirected the route through which choice architecture takes effect. Exploratory analysis further showed this redirection to be systematically structured by model scale. Beyond establishing nudge susceptibility as a behavioural property of agentic AI, the study positions interface design as a governance concern for organizations that delegate decisions to autonomous agents.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 37 of its 105 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Sep 2026.
Builds on
37 of 105 references.
References · 37
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,182
- 2022Emergent Abilities of Large Language Modelscited by 2,512
- 2021Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processingcited by 2,234
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
- 2022WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language Agentscited by 1,251
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 1,040
- 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluationscited by 836
- 2022Towards Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 596
- 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agentscited by 538
- 2022Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3cited by 398
- 2024Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Modelscited by 326
25 more
- 2025From System 1 to System 2: A Survey of Reasoning Large Language Modelscited by 320
- 2023Role-Play with Large Language Modelscited by 294
- 2024Tool Learning with Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 223
- 2023Inverse Scaling: When Bigger Isn't Bettercited by 207
- 2023Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey designcited by 180
- 2023FinMem: A Performance-Enhanced LLM Trading Agent with Layered Memory and Character Designcited by 164
- 2024Large Language Model-Brained GUI Agents: A Surveycited by 162
- 2025Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs Could Be Insider Threatscited by 158
- 2023Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluatorscited by 150
- 2022Thinking Fast and Slow in Large Language Modelscited by 137
- 2023Generative AIcited by 120
- 2024What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Knowcited by 110
- 2024Mind Your Step (by Step): Chain-of-Thought can Reduce Performance on Tasks where Thinking Makes Humans Worsecited by 109
- 2024Cognitive Bias in Decision-Making with LLMscited by 106
- 2024GUI Agents: A Surveycited by 103
- 2022Capturing Failures of Large Language Models via Human Cognitive Biasescited by 98
- 2023System 2 Attention (is something you might need too)cited by 89
- 2020Thinking Fast and Slow in AIcited by 70
- 2023SheetCopilot: Bringing Software Productivity to the Next Level through Large Language Modelscited by 57
- 2023Instructed to Bias: Instruction-Tuned Language Models Exhibit Emergent Cognitive Biascited by 53
- 2025Do as We Do, Not as You Think: the Conformity of Large Language Modelscited by 53
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey of Agents for Computer Use: Foundations, Challenges, and Future Directionscited by 34
- 2024Counting Ability of Large Language Models and Impact of Tokenizationcited by 32
- 2025Towards Enterprise-Ready Computer Using Generalist Agentcited by 31
- 2024(Ir)rationality and Cognitive Biases in Large Language Modelscited by 23
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026The Behavioral Fabric of LLM-Powered GUI Agents: Human Values and Interaction Outcomes
- 2025LLM Agents Are Hypersensitive to Nudges
- 2025Characterizing Unintended Consequences in Human-GUI Agent Collaboration for Web Browsing
- 2023Do LLM Agents Exhibit Social Behavior?
- 2025Can LLM Agents Simulate Multi-Turn Human Behavior? Evidence from Real Online Customer Behavior Data
- 2026LLM Consumer Behavior Theory: Foundations of a Novel Research Field
- 2026Seeing the Reasoning: How LLM Rationales Influence User Trust and Decision-Making in Factual Verification Tasks
- 2026When LLM Rationales Become User-Facing: Effects on Trust Perception, Decision-Making, and Gaze Behaviors