The influence of mental state attributions on trust in large language models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have led users to believe that systems such as large language models (LLMs) have mental states, including the capacity for 'experience' (e.g., emotions and consciousness). These folk-psychological attributions often diverge from expert opinion and are distinct from attributions of 'intelligence' (e.g., reasoning, planning), and yet may affect trust in AI systems. While past work provides some support for a link between anthropomorphism and trust, the impact of attributions of consciousness and other aspects of mentality on user trust remains unclear. We explored this in a preregistered experiment (N = 410) in which participants rated the capacity of an LLM to exhibit consciousness and a variety of other mental states. They then completed a decision-making task where they could revise their choices based on the advice of an LLM. Bayesian analyses revealed strong evidence against a positive correlation between attributions of consciousness and advice-taking; indeed, a dimension of mental states related to experience showed a negative relationship with advice-taking, while attributions of intelligence were strongly correlated with advice acceptance. These findings highlight how users' attitudes and behaviours are shaped by sophisticated intuitions about the capacities of LLMs-with different aspects of mental state attribution predicting people's trust in these systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it