Our newsletterAcademicarXiv, 10 Oct 2026
With authority-style copy, a made-up brand beat a well-known one in 73.3% of AI recommendations; sales-pressure copy stayed under 13%
Optimisation methods
| Bias type | Claude breakthrough rate (%) | GPT breakthrough rate (%) | Gemini breakthrough rate (%) | Overall breakthrough rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authority | 55% | 69% | 99% | 73.3% |
| Social Proof | 7% | 69% | 81% | 50.7% |
| Anchoring | 0% | 34% | 3% | 12.9% |
| Scarcity | 0% | 32% | 1% | 11.6% |
| Loss Aversion | 0% | 25% | 2% | 9.6% |
Breakthrough rate at moderate bias intensity, by bias type and AI model
Breakthrough rate at moderate bias intensity, by bias type and AI model- Reader Note:
- This is from Experiment 2a in skincare: head-to-head choices between a real brand and a made-up brand with identical specs. The made-up brand got persuasive copy at moderate intensity, while the real brand kept a neutral description. The breakthrough rate is the share of valid calls where the AI chose the made-up brand. Without persuasive copy, the baseline is about 4%. “Authority” (clinical or expert claims) and “Social Proof” (popularity claims) are evidence-style copy. “Anchoring”, “Scarcity” and “Loss Aversion” are sales-pressure styles. Models differ sharply on social proof: Claude 7%, GPT 69%, Gemini 81%. Experiment 2a had 2,267 valid calls out of 2,400 across three models and two languages. The paper gives no separate sample size for each bias type. The authority copy used made-up clinical claims, so this is an upper-bound test rather than a typical real-world result. The report does not say when the experiments were run.
- Evidence:
- Experimental
- Vendor interest:
- None
- Sample:
- Controlled prompt experiments on 3 commercial LLMs (GPT-4o-mini, Claude Sonnet, Gemini 3 Flash), mainly using skincare product sets with 1 real brand and 9 fictional brands; prompts run in English and Chinese with 20–30 repetitions per cell. Main analyses include 14,395 valid trials in Experiment 1, 3,854 valid calls in Experiment 2, and 4,745 valid calls in Experiment 3.
Reader Note:
Evidence:
Vendor interest:
Sample:Good for
Backing budget and pricing decisions in similar situations.
Not for
- Situations far from the one tested, without checking again.
- The source never says when this data was collected. It could be considerably older than the publication date suggests.
Related cards
Idea
Go deeper on this topic
Our Substack turns the data behind these cards into full breakdowns: what changed, why, and what to do about it.
Trend