ArticleRoyal Society open science2024
Personality testing of large language models: limited temporal stability, but highlighted prosociality.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Persona-prompted LLM agents achieve modest but genuine prediction of human social media reactions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Inferring Personality From Social Media Activity Using Large Language Models: Cross-Model Agreement, Temporal Stability, and Convergent Validity With Self-Reports.Journal of personality · 2026Article
- Personality Constructs Predictions Beyond FFM/Big5: A Digital Phenotyping-Based Exploration.Journal of personality · 2026Article
- The AI interviewer: multi-faceted evaluation of adaptive questioning by large language models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative assessment of quality, consistency, and reference accuracy of MIH-related clinical information generated by ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek R1.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A critical analysis of MBTI-based personality profiling with large language models.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2026Article
- Comparing large Language models and human annotators in latent content analysis of sentiment, political leaning, emotional intensity and sarcasm.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Personality testing of large language models: limited temporal stability, but highlighted prosociality.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.