The exact text we saved

This is the version exactly as it was saved, character for character. The SHA-256 hash below is a 64-character code worked out from that text. Run the same text through SHA-256 and you get the same code; change a single letter and the code comes out completely different. Each version also stores the previous version’s hash, which chains them together so no version can be swapped out quietly.

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-2638
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-11-12T16:55:21.079240Z
status: published
lens: p_space
sector: science
headline: AI Chatbot’s Self-Confidence Cues Shape Users’ Impressions of the Chatbot, but Not Accuracy Judgments of Hallucinated Responses
dek: A 2 × 2 × 2 (confidence level × confidence variability × confidence modality) between-subjectsonline experiment (N = 738) examined how an AI chatbot’s self-confidence influences users’ evaluations of the chatbot and its hallucinated outputs. When confidence variability was low, more dominant participants evaluated the verbal (vs. numerical) chatbot more positively and indicated greater willingness to use it, whereas less dominant participants favored the numerical chatbot. In the high-variability condition, thes…
gain_title: (none)
problem_title: In an online experiment of 738 people, a chatbot's self-confidence cues changed how positively users rated it, but did not change how accurate they judged its hallucinated outputs to be.
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: (none)
gain_evidence: (none)
problem_reading: In an online experiment of 738 people, a chatbot's self-confidence cues changed how positively users rated it, but did not change how accurate they judged its hallucinated outputs to be.
problem_evidence: it did not affect users’ perceived accuracy of the chatbot’s outputs
quick_read: An online experiment with 738 participants tested how an AI chatbot's expressions of self-confidence shape users' views of the chatbot and of its hallucinated outputs. The design varied confidence level, confidence variability and confidence modality (verbal versus numerical) between subjects.

Where confidence varied little, more dominant participants rated the verbal chatbot more positively and were more willing to use it, while less dominant participants preferred the numerical one. Those differences disappeared when confidence varied a lot.

Follow-up analyses suggest that attributing greater dominance to a verbal chatbot triggered a similarity-attraction effect. That effect did not extend to how accurate users thought the chatbot's outputs were, so confidence cues did not alter judgments of the hallucinated answers.
limitation: 
tag: Evidence-backed problem
key_points: The study was a 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects online experiment with 738 participants. | The three manipulated factors were confidence level, confidence variability and confidence modality (verbal versus numerical). | With low confidence variability, more dominant participants rated the verbal chatbot more positively and were more willing to use it. | With low confidence variability, less dominant participants favored the numerical chatbot. | These preference patterns disappeared in the high-variability condition. | Post-hoc analyses linked a verbal chatbot's perceived dominance to a similarity-attraction heuristic. | Perceived dominance did not affect users' perceived accuracy of the chatbot's outputs.
rundown: The experiment manipulated three features of a chatbot's self-confidence: how high it was, how much it varied, and whether it was expressed in words or numbers. Participants were assigned to one condition each, and the study measured their evaluations of the chatbot and their willingness to use it.

The results depended on the user's own dominance. When the chatbot's confidence stayed steady, more dominant participants preferred the verbal version and less dominant participants preferred the numerical version. When confidence varied widely, neither pattern held.

Post-hoc analyses tied the verbal chatbot effect to the similarity-attraction heuristic, in which people like others who seem similar to themselves. This shaped impressions of the chatbot but not perceived accuracy of its hallucinated outputs.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media | https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2026.2752936 | 2026-11-02
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

SHA-256 hash

e5f910c03daab3b3ee27e618f79f3e2d9aa435e3f92f73f28ec46aeec06434e4

Previous version’s hash

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000