ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Personality profiles and usage experience are associated with trust and dependence on generative AI: a latent profile analysis.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is increasingly integrated into daily decision-making and task performance, as users rely on it to improve productivity, support decision-making, and reduce perceived human error. However, GAI outputs may contain inaccuracies, misleading content, or algorithmic biases. These issues may contribute to uncritical acceptance or excessive dependence among users, potentially posing risks to individuals and third parties. From an individual perspective, this study systematically explores how personality traits and text-based GAI usage experience interact in relation to users' trust in and dependence on text-based GAI. Methods: This study was based on a survey of 502 users measuring personality, usage experience, trust, dependence, self-efficacy, and critical thinking. Results: Significant interaction effects were found. Among high-experience users, the Well-Adjusted Type showed the highest dependence and self-efficacy, along with relatively high trust and critical thinking. The Outgoing-Unstructured Type showed the highest overall trust and, among high-experience users, the highest critical thinking, while its dependence did not differ significantly between low- and high-experience users. Overall, the Emotionally-Sensitive Type showed the lowest mean levels across the four outcomes, which may indicate a more cautious pattern of text-based GAI engagement. Discussion: These findings are discussed in relation to an evolutionary-cognitive perspective on how users may engage with human-like communicative cues in text-based GAI. The study emphasizes the importance of personalized text-based GAI usage strategies to mitigate misuse risks.
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.