Shaping Opinion: Quantifying the Psychological Impact of Autonomous Multi-Agent LLM Interactions

Abstract

Natural-sounding multi-agent conversational AI is increasingly deployed, fundamentally altering human-machine interaction and human information processing. While prior work largely focuses on algorithmic failure, this study investigates the cognitive ergonomics and socio-cognitive impact of algorithmic competence. We present and evaluate FORMS (Framework for Opinion and Rhetoric in Multi-agent Simulations), a low-latency architecture for spatially mediated human-machine dialogue, driven by distinct LLM-based personas and real-time concurrency resolution. To conduct a system test and evaluation of its psychological impact, we exposed an adolescent cohort (n=120) and an adult pilot group (n=25) to a live, moderated synthetic debate. Our findings reveal that exposure to highly competent multi-agent systems triggers"Cognitive Destabilization,"fragmenting users'prior strategic consensus. Concurrently, we observe a"Regulatory Awakening"driven by the"Normality Paradox": fluid human-machine interactions inherently increase the baseline demand for external regulation. Furthermore, our pilot study suggests the presence of a"Truthfulness Paradox": despite understanding the risks of generative AI, participants in the adult cohort rated the synthetic debate as significantly more sincere than equivalent human discourse (Cohen's d=2.04). Supported by robust statistical effect sizes, this paper contributes the FORMS architecture and a replicable evaluation protocol, illustrating how high-fidelity conversational systems can reshape human information processing.