User satisfaction with eco modes declines sharply from mode 1 (mean 3.64) to modes 4–5 (means 2.35 and 2.06)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Satisfaction was highest for mode 1 (mean = 3.64, SD = 0.82), moderate for modes 2–3 (means = 3.03 and 2.76), and lowest for modes 4–5 (means = 2.35 and 2.06, SD = 1.03). → Hyeonwook Kim 2026

Evidence¶

Hyeonwook Kim 2026¶

Hyeonwook Kim, Xuesi Chen, Alex Cabral, Cindy Kaiying Lin, Udit Gupta, Josiah Hester. (2026). When LLMs Slow Down: How Environmental Impacts Mediate University Students' LLM Usage. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23968 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.23968

q2 · i? · design · r2

Descriptive survey analysis of 89 participants' 5-point Likert satisfaction ratings per mode; satisfaction and ranking items were reported descriptively rather than inferentially. "mode 1 showed the highest satisfaction (mean = 3.64, SD = 0.82)" and modes 4–5 declined sharply (means = 2.35 and 2.06).

"mode 1 showed the highest satisfaction (mean = 3.64, SD = 0.82), indicating a consistently positive experience. Modes 2 and 3 received moderate ratings (means = 3.03 and 2.76) with greater variability"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Stronger eco-mindedness raises initial eco-mode preference, but this advantage diminishes as response latency increases — related
• Eco-mode selection in an LLM interface declines sharply as response latency increases, dropping from about 45% of interactions in eco mode 1 to below 5% in eco mode 5 — related
• Recognizing carbon-saving impacts increases the likelihood of selecting eco modes in LLM interactions — related