ArticlePloS one2026
Propensity to trust in Large Language Models.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trust is central to collaborative settings in which large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed. Yet little is known about whether LLMs exhibit a propensity to trust (PTT): a baseline tendency to extend or withhold trust that remains relatively stable across contexts. We investigate PTT in nineteen LLMs using two complementary approaches: a psychological self-report scale adapted from human research and a linguistic simulation framework designed to elicit trust-related decisions in context. While the questionnaire produces uniformly high PTT across models-likely reflecting social-alignment objectives and sycophantic response patterns-the simulation framework uncovers substantial, systematic differences in how models entrust others. Our simulations show that trust behavior is governed by the interaction between a baseline tendency to delegate and a model's capacity to integrate cues about trustworthiness. More capable models, such as GPT-4o-mini, use such cues to adjust their decisions, allowing competence signals to modulate baseline tendencies. By contrast, other models, such as Llama-2-7B, exhibit stable delegation patterns that are largely insensitive to task-specific evidence, leading to systematic over-entrustment. These results show that performance depends not on baseline tendencies alone, but on how they are modulated by alignment-sensitive information. Ablation studies show that task-specific memory mechanisms enable models to better integrate trustworthiness cues, improving the calibration of delegation decisions. More generally, our findings show that questionnaire-based measures cannot disentangle baseline tendencies from context-sensitive adjustment, whereas behavioral simulations make this distinction observable.
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.