Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39386990›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2024

Personality testing of large language models: limited temporal stability, but highlighted prosociality.

Bojana Bodroža, Bojana M Dinić, Ljubiša Bojić

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bojana BodrožaDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4165-0678
Bojana M DinićDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5492-2188
Ljubiša BojićInstitute for Artificial Intelligence Research and Development of Serbia, Novi Sad, Serbia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5371-7975

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As large language models (LLMs) continue to gain popularity due to their human-like traits and the intimacy they offer to users, their societal impact inevitably expands. This leads to the rising necessity for comprehensive studies to fully understand LLMs and reveal their potential opportunities, drawbacks and overall societal impact. With that in mind, this research conducted an extensive investigation into seven LLMs, aiming to assess the temporal stability and inter-rater agreement on their responses on personality instruments in two time points. In addition, LLMs' personality profile was analysed and compared with human normative data. The findings revealed varying levels of inter-rater agreement in the LLMs' responses over a short time, with some LLMs showing higher agreement (e.g. Llama3 and GPT-4o) compared with others (e.g. GPT-4 and Gemini). Furthermore, agreement depended on used instruments as well as on domain or trait. This implies the variable robustness in LLMs' ability to reliably simulate stable personality characteristics. In the case of scales which showed at least fair agreement, LLMs displayed mostly a socially desirable profile in both agentic and communal domains, as well as a prosocial personality profile reflected in higher agreeableness and conscientiousness and lower Machiavellianism. Exhibiting temporal stability and coherent responses on personality traits is crucial for AI systems due to their societal impact and AI safety concerns.

Indexed as

AI chatbotlarge language modelpersonality profiletemporal stabilitytest–retest reliability

Identifiers

PMID39386990
PMCPMC11461045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.