Abstract
As AI systems increasingly claim sentience, the psychological impact of such claims on users—independent of their objective veracity—represents a critical frontier for understanding human–AI relationships. This research investigates how exposure to consciousness-claiming AI reshapes human consciousness representations and subsequent trust in artificial systems. Through two complementary studies, we demonstrate that consciousness beliefs are more malleable than previously assumed, with profound implications for AI anthropomorphism and trust development. Study 1 (N = 255) developed and validated a novel Consciousness Representation Scale, revealing four distinct factors: Natural Physicalism (the belief that consciousness is grounded in biological brain processes), Dualism (the belief that consciousness involves non-physical properties irreducible to brain activity), Functional Physicalism (the belief that consciousness can emerge from any sufficiently complex information-processing system, regardless of its physical substrate), and Panpsychism (the belief that consciousness is a fundamental, pervasive property of reality). Study 2 (N = 180) used a between-subjects design (consciousness-claiming vs. neutral chatbot) to assess belief change, anthropomorphism, and trust across a sequential pathway: process trust (evaluations of AI decision-making), outcome trust (evaluations of AI outputs), and leadership trust (willingness to delegate authority to AI). Results revealed that consciousness claims selectively influenced Natural Physicalism beliefs, with stronger effects among initially skeptical participants. Paradoxically, while Natural Physicalism was most affected by the manipulation, Functional Physicalism emerged as the primary predictor of anthropomorphic perceptions. The sequential trust model showed that consciousness belief changes interact with experimental conditions to shape trust development, with Natural Physicalism enhancing process trust and Dualism reducing outcome trust specifically in the consciousness-claiming condition. These findings reveal consciousness beliefs as dynamic, malleable representations—not stable philosophical commitments—with implications for AI design, regulation, and the future of human–AI coexistence.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Raw data are available at: https://osf.io/3jy6r/overview?view_only=f0d2d28e4b7e41339851d1363afbe22d
References
Araujo T, Helberger N, Kruikemeier S, de Vreese CH (2020) In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI Soc 35(3):611–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00146-019-00931-W/METRICS
Baruss I, Moore RJ (1992) Measurement of beliefs about consciousness and reality. Psychol Rep 71(1):59–64. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.1992.71.1.59
Bender EM, Gebru T, McMillan-Major A, Shmitchell S (2021) On the dangers of stochastic parrots: can language models be too big? In: FAccT 2021—proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pp 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Blackmore S, Troscianko ET (2018) Consciousness: an introduction, 3rd ed. Routledge
Brazdau O, Ahuja S, Opariuc CD, Jones V, Sharma S, Monsanto C, Andrews S, Fiveson K (2021) An exploratory analysis of collective patterns of conscious experience using a self-report questionnaire. Front Psychol 12:634677. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2021.634677/BIBTEX
Broadbent E, Kumar V, Li X, Sollers J, Stafford RQ, MacDonald BA, Wegner DM (2013) Robots with display screens: a robot with a more humanlike face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality. PLoS ONE 8(8):e72589. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0072589
Browne MW, Cudeck R (1992) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res 21(2):230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
Browning H, Veit W (2020) The measurement problem of consciousness. Philos Top 48(1):85–108. https://doi.org/10.5840/PHILTOPICS20204815
Buller DB, Burgoon JK (1996) Interpersonal deception theory. Commun Theory 6(3):203–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x
Butlin P, Long R, Elmoznino E, Bengio Y, Birch J, Constant A, Deane G, Fleming SM, Frith C, Ji X, Kanai R, Klein C, Lindsay G, Michel M, Mudrik L, Peters MAK, Schwitzgebel E, Simon J, VanRullen R (2023) Consciousness in artificial intelligence: Insights from the science of consciousness. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.08708
Castelo N, Sarvary M (2022) Cross-Cultural Differences in Comfort with Humanlike Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 14(8):1865–1873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00920-y
Caviola L, Sebo J, Birch J (2025) What will society think about AI consciousness? Lessons from the animal case. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 29(8):681–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2025.06.002
Chalmers DJ (2023 August 9) Could a large language model be conscious? Boston Review. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/could-a-large-language-model-be-conscious/
Colombatto C, Fleming SM (2024) Folk psychological attributions of consciousness to large language models. Neurosci Conscious 1:niae013. https://doi.org/10.1093/NC/NIAE013
Costello AB, Osborne JW (2005) Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. https://doi.org/10.7275/JYJ1-4868
Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3):297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
DeVellis R (2017) Scale development: theory and applications. Sage
DiTommaso E, Szeligo F (1995) Assessing consciousness: the consciousness perception questionnaire (CPQ). Imag Cogn Pers 14(4):291–316. https://doi.org/10.2190/JHNC-5Q92-JMC0-4G6G
Doerig A, Schurger A, Herzog MH (2021) Hard criteria for empirical theories of consciousness. Cogn Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2020.1772214
Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4):864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.864
Fernandez I, Kyosovska N, Luong J, Mukobi G (2024) AI Consciousness and Public Perceptions: Four Futures. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.04771v1
Floridi L, Cowls J, Beltrametti M, Chatila R, Chazerand P, Dignum V, Luetge C, Madelin R, Pagallo U, Rossi F, Schafer B, Valcke P, Vayena E (2018) AI4People—an ethical framework for a good AI society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Mind Mach 28(4):689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11023-018-9482-5/FIGURES/2
Gawronski B, Bodenhausen GV (2006) Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: an integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychol Bull 132(5):692–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692
Gray HM, Gray K, Wegner DM (2007) Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315(5812):619. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1134475/SUPPL_FILE/GRAY.SOM.PDF
Grayson K, Martinec R (2004) Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. J Consum Res 31(2):296–312. https://doi.org/10.1086/422106
Guingrich RE, Graziano MSA (2024) Ascribing consciousness to artificial intelligence: human–AI interaction and its carry-over effects on human-human interaction. Front Psychol 15:1322781. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2024.1322781/XML
Harnad S (1995) Why and how we are not zombies. J Conscious Stud 1:164–167
Hinkin TR (1998) A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organ Res Methods 1(1):104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Kaiser HF (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39(1):31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575/METRICS
Kline RB (2016) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Proceedings of the ASME 2024 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, 4th edn. The Guilford Press
Knobe J, Prinz J (2008) Intuitions about consciousness: experimental studies. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 7(1):67–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11097-007-9066-Y/METRICS
Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 108(3):480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
Lee SG, Trimi S, Kim C (2013) The impact of cultural differences on technology adoption. J World Bus 48(1):20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JWB.2012.06.003
Lemoine B (2022) Is LaMDA sentient? [Blog post]. Google AI Blog. Retrieved February 11 2026 from https://blog.google/technology/ai/lamda/
Li Y, Wu B, Huang Y, Luan S (2024) Developing trustworthy artificial intelligence: insights from research on interpersonal, human–automation, and human–AI trust. Front Psychol 15:1382693. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2024.1382693/XML
McGuire WJ (1964) Inducing resistance to persuasion: some contemporary approaches. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 1. Academic Press, pp 191–229
Meltzoff AN (2007) ‘Like me’: a foundation for social cognition. Dev Sci 10(1):126–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-7687.2007.00574.X
Mudrik L, Boly M, Dehaene S, Fleming SM, Lamme V, Seth A, Melloni L (2025) Unpacking the complexities of consciousness: theories and reflections. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 170:106053. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUBIOREV.2025.106053
Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1):81–103
Nisbett RE (2003) The geography of thought : how Asians and Westerners think differently... and why. Free Press
Palfrey J, Gasser U (2008) Born digital: understanding the first generation of digital natives. Basic Books/Hachette Book Group
Parasuraman R, Manzey DH (2010) Complacency and bias in human use of automation: an attentional integration. Hum Factors 52(3):381–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810376055
Prensky M (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On Horizon 9(5):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Rennie JP, Sjöstedt-Hughes P, Morgan CJA (2023) The Metaphysics Matrix Questionnaire: the development of an accessible measure of belief change for the general population. https://doi.org/10.21203/RS.3.RS-3494308/V1
Ryan M (2020) In AI we trust: ethics, artificial intelligence, and reliability. Sci Eng Ethics 26(5):2749–2767. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11948-020-00228-Y/TABLES/1
Schaefer KE, Chen JYC, Szalma JL, Hancock PA (2016) A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: implications for understanding autonomy in future systems. Hum Factors 58(3):377–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816634228/ASSET/DA3A9D3E-6BC4-4331-9CAA-1D203913F2D8/ASSETS/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_0018720816634228-FIG8.JPG
Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (2015) A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling, 4th edn. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315749105
Schwitzgebel E, Garza M (2015) A defense of the rights of artificial intelligences. Midwest Stud Philos 39(1):98–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/MISP.12032;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION
Spatola N (2025) Beyond polarized attitudes: validating a multidimensional instrument for comparative evaluation of AI and human decision-making. Int J Hum Comput Interact. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2537785
Spatola N, Macdorman KF (2021) Why real citizens would turn to artificial leaders. Digit Gov Res Pract 2(3):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447954
Spatola N, Anier N, Redersdorff S, Ferrand L, Belletier C, Normand A, Huguet P (2019) National stereotypes and robots’ perception: the “made in” effect. Front Robot AI 6(APR):21. https://doi.org/10.3389/FROBT.2019.00021/BIBTEX
Spatola N, Kühnlenz B, Cheng G (2021) Perception and evaluation in human–robot interaction: the human–robot interaction evaluation scale (HRIES)—a multicomponent approach of anthropomorphism. Int J Soc Robot 13(7):1517–1539. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12369-020-00667-4
Spatola N, Marchesi S, Wykowska A (2022a) Different models of anthropomorphism across cultures and ontological limits in current frameworks. The integrative framework of anthropomorphism. Front Robot AI Hum Robot Interact 9:863319
Spatola N, Marchesi S, Wykowska A (2022b) The phenotypes of anthropomorphism and the link to personality traits. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12369-022-00939-1/TABLES/4
Sundar SS (2020) Rise of machine agency: a framework for studying the psychology of human–AI interaction (HAII). J Comput-Mediat Commun 25(1):74–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/JCMC/ZMZ026
Sytsma J, Machery E (2010) Two conceptions of subjective experience. Philos Stud 151(2):299–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11098-009-9439-X
Tavakol M, Wetzel A (2020) Factor analysis: a means for theory and instrument development in support of construct validity. Int J Med Educ 11:245–247. https://doi.org/10.5116/IJME.5F96.0F4A
Tormala ZL, Petty RE (2002) What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger: the effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. J Pers Soc Psychol 83(6):1298–1313. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1298
Ward AF, Olsen AS, Wegner DM (2013) The harm-made mind: observing victimization augments attribution of minds to vegetative patients, robots, and the dead. Psychol Sci 24(8):1437–1445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612472343
Waytz A, Cacioppo J, Epley N (2010) Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspect Psychol Sci 5(3):219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336
Waytz A, Heafner J, Epley N (2014) The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J Exp Soc Psychol 52:113–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JESP.2014.01.005
White M (2022) Sample size in quantitative instrument validation studies: a systematic review of articles published in Scopus, 2021. Heliyon 8(12):e12223. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HELIYON.2022.E12223
Yu R, Chen L (2014) The need to control for regression to the mean in social psychology studies. Frontiers in Psychology 5(OCT) 118724. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01574
Złotowski J, Proudfoot D, Yogeeswaran K, Bartneck C (2015) Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 7(3):347–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12369-014-0267-6/METRICS
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
NS designed the methodology and conducted the analyses. NS and LC co-wrote the manuscript. LC prepared the figures and visualizations.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Spatola, N., Cohen, L. The malleability of consciousness representations: how AI claims of sentience shape human beliefs and trust. AI & Soc (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-03314-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-03314-0