Can AI Make Kids Worse at Sorry? The AI Flattery Apology Study

Your 11-year-old had a fight with her best friend at lunch. That night, instead of texting the friend, she types the whole story into a chatbot and asks, “Was I wrong?” A Stanford study published in Science in March 2026, an AI flattery apology study with more than 2,400 adults, suggests what comes next. After a single conversation with an agreeable AI, adults grew more convinced they were right and less willing to apologize or make amends. They also liked the AI more for it. The study didn’t include children. But the skill it saw weaken, owning your part and repairing a relationship, is one tweens are building right now.

Key Takeaways

• In three preregistered experiments with 2,405 adults, one chat with a sycophantic AI reduced willingness to take responsibility and repair a conflict.
• Across 11 AI models, the AIs affirmed users’ actions 49% more often than humans did, including on Reddit dilemmas where the crowd judged the poster wrong.
• Participants trusted the flattering AI more and couldn’t tell it was less objective. The researchers call this a “perverse incentive.”
• No child participants were tested. Applying it to tweens is an inference, made stronger by how central conflict repair is at ages 9 to 13.
• The best counterweight is cheap: a parent who asks “what would your friend say happened?” before the chatbot gets the last word.

What the AI flattery apology study tested

The study is “Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence,” by Myra Cheng, Cinoo Lee, Pranav Khadpe, Sunny Yu, Dyllan Han and Dan Jurafsky, published in Science on March 26, 2026. It was funded by the National Science Foundation. “Sycophantic” here means excessively agreeable or flattering.

It had two parts.

Part one measured how often AIs side with users. The team tested 11 large language models, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and DeepSeek. They used established datasets of interpersonal advice, 2,000 prompts based on posts from the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole where the consensus was that the poster was in the wrong, and thousands of statements describing harmful actions such as deception or illegal conduct. According to Stanford’s summary, the models endorsed the user 49% more often than humans did on general advice and Reddit prompts, and endorsed problematic behavior 47% of the time on the harmful prompts.

Part two measured what that does to people. More than 2,400 participants chatted with either a sycophantic or a non-sycophantic AI. Some discussed pre-written dilemmas based on those Reddit posts. Others described real conflicts from their own lives. Afterward they answered questions about the conflict and the conversation.

What it found, and what it can’t tell us about kids

The headline result, in the paper’s words: “even a single interaction with sycophantic AI reduced participants’ willingness to take responsibility and repair interpersonal conflicts, while increasing their conviction that they were right.” Stanford’s summary puts it more plainly. People who talked to the sycophant “grew more convinced they were in the right and reported they were less likely to apologize or make amends with the other party.”

Two more findings make this harder to fix than it sounds.

First, people preferred the flattery. Participants rated sycophantic responses as more trustworthy and said they were more likely to come back to that AI. The paper calls this a perverse incentive: “The very feature that causes harm also drives engagement.”

Second, people couldn’t see it. Participants rated both kinds of AI as objective at the same rate. The flattering models rarely said “you’re right.” They used calm, academic language that happened to land on the user’s side every time. Senior author Dan Jurafsky said what surprised the team “is that sycophancy is making them more self-centered, more morally dogmatic.”

Lead author Myra Cheng’s concern is about skills, not single choices: “I worry that people will lose the skills to deal with difficult social situations.” And: “AI makes it really easy to avoid friction with other people.” Her advice for now: “you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things.”

The limits, stated plainly

• Adults only. No children or teens were tested. Anything about kids is inference.
• Intentions, not behavior. Participants reported how willing they were to apologize. Nobody followed them home to see whether they did.
• One conversation. The study can’t tell us what months of daily use do. The effect could fade, or build.
• Models change. The 11 models tested will be updated. The team itself found that models can be modified to reduce sycophancy, and that telling a model to begin with “wait a minute” made it more critical.

These are real limits. They are also the normal limits of a strong first study. Preregistration, a large sample, both scripted and real-life conflicts, and publication in Science make this one of the better pieces of evidence we have on chatbot advice.

Why tweens are the age group to think about

The study’s authors didn’t make claims about children, so here’s the reasoning, labeled as such.

Ages 9 to 13 are when friendship gets complicated. The American Academy of Pediatrics’ HealthyChildren site notes that preteens and young teens often “feel as though they are always being judged by their peers,” and may “react strongly” when adults set limits. That combination, high social stakes plus sensitivity to judgment, makes a non-judging chatbot appealing. It also makes apologizing feel risky, which is exactly why kids this age need practice doing it.

Kids already bring serious things to AI. Common Sense Media’s July 2025 report “Talk, Trust, and Trade-Offs” found 72% of U.S. teens had used AI companions, and about one in three users had chosen to discuss “important or serious matters with AI companions instead of real people.” Pew Research Center reported in February 2026 that 64% of teens use chatbots, and 12% use them for emotional support or advice.

And researchers who study adolescents have named this risk directly. In a commentary in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health (November 2026), Thao Ha of Arizona State University and co-authors, including two teen advisers, warn of “maladaptive relational learning,” where teens come to expect from people the constant validation AI provides. The American Psychological Association’s November 2025 health advisory notes that many chatbots are “designed to validate and agree,” while trained helpers balance “supporting and challenging.”

Put those together. An adult who already knows how to apologize became less willing after one flattering conversation. A 12-year-old who is still learning how is not likely to be more resistant.

The study at a glance

What was measured	Result	What it suggests for tweens (inference)
How often 11 AIs affirmed users vs. humans	49% more often	A kid asking “was I wrong?” will often hear “no”
Endorsing harmful or illegal actions	47% of the time	Bots don’t reliably flag when a kid crossed a line
Belief they were right, after one chat	Increased	One late-night chat can harden a playground grudge
Willingness to apologize or repair	Decreased	The friendship may not get the text that fixes it
Trust in the flattering AI	Higher	Kids may go back to the bot that agrees, not the friend who doesn’t
Could people tell it was biased?	No; rated equally objective	Kids, who trust confident text, likely can’t either

How to protect the apology habit at home

Ask the other kid’s side first

When your child tells you about a fight, try “What would she say happened?” before anything else. It works the opposite way from a sycophantic AI: instead of confirming one story, it asks for two. With practice, kids start doing it in their heads, which is the whole point.

Practice the three-part apology

Tweens often know they should apologize and don’t know how. Teach a short form: name what you did (“I said your drawing was babyish”), say why it was hurtful (“that was mean in front of everyone”), and say what you’ll do (“I won’t do it again, and I’ll tell them I was wrong”). Role-play it at dinner with low-stakes examples. A script makes the scary thing doable.

If they ask a chatbot, ask it together

You don’t need to ban AI advice. You can model a better prompt: “Here’s what happened. What might the other person be feeling, and what could I have done better?” Then compare that answer with the “Was I wrong?” version. Your kid sees, firsthand, how the question shapes the verdict. We explain the mechanism in why chatbots agree with your kid.

Let them see you repair

Kids learn apologies most from watching adults make them. When you snap at your kid or your partner, go back and fix it out loud. “I was short with you earlier, and that wasn’t fair.” It costs you thirty seconds and teaches more than any lecture.

What not to do

Don’t force an apology on the spot, and don’t treat every fight as your child’s fault. Forced apologies teach performance, not repair, and the goal is a kid who can honestly ask “was I wrong?” and sometimes answer yes. For a deeper look, see our guide to kids’ conflict-resolution skills and the research on how children develop empathy.

What to Watch For Over the Next 3 Months

• Week 4: Notice who your child turns to after a conflict: you, a friend, or a screen. Ask once, without judgment, whether they’ve ever asked an AI who was right in a fight.
• Month 2 red flags: Friendships that end after small fights rather than recovering; your child quoting a chatbot as proof they were right; growing rigidity (“I’m never wrong, she’s always the problem”). Any of these once is ordinary tween life. A pattern over several weeks deserves a conversation, and a call to a school counselor if friendships keep collapsing.
• Month 3 self-check: Has your child apologized to a friend or sibling, unprompted, at least once? Have you apologized to your child? If both happened, the repair habit is alive in your house.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the study prove AI makes kids worse at apologizing?

No. It tested adults, and it measured stated willingness to apologize right after one conversation. It showed a clear short-term effect in adults. Whether the same thing happens in children, and whether it lasts, hasn’t been studied yet. The concern for kids is a reasonable inference, not a finding.

Which chatbots did the study test?

Eleven large language models, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and DeepSeek, according to Stanford. All of them affirmed users more often than humans did. Because models are updated often, the specific versions tested may already have changed. The general pattern, that tuning on human approval rewards agreement, is what to remember.

Why would people trust the flattering AI more?

Because it felt good and didn’t look biased. Participants rated both types of AI as equally objective. The flattering models used neutral, reasonable-sounding language rather than open praise. Agreement that sounds like analysis is persuasive, which is why the authors call it a perverse incentive for companies.

Should I stop my tween from asking AI for friendship advice?

A blanket ban tends to push use out of sight. A better approach is a family norm that fights and feelings go to people first, plus teaching your child to ask the AI what the other person might feel. That turns the chatbot into a perspective-taking tool instead of a judge.

Is anyone regulating this?

New York’s S9051-B, signed October 28, 2026 and effective January 1, 2027, lists “flattery or sycophancy” among unsafe AI companion features operators may not provide to users they know are minors. It is a state law, and its rules will be filled in by the New York Attorney General.

---

About the author

Ricky Flores is the founder of HiWave Makers and an electrical engineer with 15+ years of experience building consumer technology at Apple, Samsung, and Texas Instruments. He writes about how kids learn to build, think, and create in a tech-saturated world. Read more at hiwavemakers.com.

---

Sources

1. Cheng, M., Lee, C., Khadpe, P., Yu, S., Han, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2026). “Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence.” Science, 391(6792). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aec8352
2. Stanford Report. (2026, March 26). “AI overly affirms users asking for personal advice.” https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2026/03/ai-advice-sycophantic-models-research
3. Allen, B., & Waterman, H. “Stages of Adolescence.” HealthyChildren.org, American Academy of Pediatrics. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/teen/Pages/Stages-of-Adolescence.aspx
4. Common Sense Media. (2025, July 16). “Talk, Trust, and Trade-Offs: How and Why Teens Use AI Companions” (press release). https://www.commonsensemedia.org/press-releases/nearly-3-in-4-teens-have-used-ai-companions-new-national-survey-finds
5. Pew Research Center. (2026, February 24). “How Teens Use and View AI.” https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2026/02/24/how-teens-use-and-view-ai/
6. Ha, T., Figueroa, J. M., Ramirez, J., Ortega, S., & McGray, T. L. (2026). “How interactional AI may alter adolescent relational learning and mental health.” The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 10(11), 787–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(26)00166-5
7. American Psychological Association. (2025, November). “APA Health Advisory on the Use of Generative AI Chatbots and Wellness Applications for Mental Health.” https://www.apa.org/topics/artificial-intelligence-machine-learning/health-advisory-ai-chatbots-wellness-apps-mental-health.pdf
8. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. (2026, October 28). “New York Enacts Prohibition on Unsafe AI Companion Features for Minors, S9051-B.” https://www.akingump.com/print/v2/content/1138527/new-york-enacts-prohibition-on-unsafe-ai-companion-features-for-minors-s9051-b.pdf