The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Human Trust in AI Search: A Large-Scale Experiment
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly power generative search engines which, in turn, drive human information seeking and decision making at scale. The extent to which humans trust generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) can therefore influence what we buy, how we vote and our health. Unfortunately, no work establishes the causal effect of generative search designs on human trust. Here we execute ~12,000 search queries across seven countries, generating ~80,000 real-time GenAI and traditional search results, to understand the extent of current global exposure to GenAI search. We then use a preregistered, randomized experiment on a large study sample representative of the U.S. population to show that while participants trust GenAI search less than traditional search on average, reference links and citations significantly increase trust in GenAI, even when those links and citations are incorrect or hallucinated. Uncertainty highlighting, which reveals GenAI's confidence in its own conclusions, makes us less willing to trust and share generative information whether that confidence is high or low. Positive social feedback increases trust in GenAI while negative feedback reduces trust. These results imply that GenAI designs can increase trust in inaccurate and hallucinated information and reduce trust when GenAI's certainty is made explicit. Trust in GenAI varies by topic and with users' demographics, education, industry employment and GenAI experience, revealing which sub-populations are most vulnerable to GenAI misrepresentations. Trust, in turn, predicts behavior, as those who trust GenAI more click more and spend less time evaluating GenAI search results. These findings suggest directions for GenAI design to safely and productively address the AI "trust gap."
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“It can support verification, but the mere visibility of references may also serve as an authority cue when users do not inspect them (Ding et al., 2025;Li & Aral, 2025;Tang et al., 2026).”
From From search results to generative answers: A mixed-methods study of credibility assessment and trust formation in AI Overviews (2027) · cites this paper as Li & Aral, 2025
In the citing paper
“This pattern indicates a potential risk of reliance without active verification, although it was not uniform across participants.”
From From search results to generative answers: A mixed-methods study of credibility assessment and trust formation in AI Overviews (2027) · cites this paper as Li & Aral, 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The impact of generative AI search result design on user perceptions and information adoption
Li, A. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3786304.3787937
Casermeiro-Corpas, Y., Rejón-Guardia, F., Vallespín, M., & Molinillo, S. (2027) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2026.105211
Metadata
- Authors
- Li, H., & Aral, S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2504.06435
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Human Trust in AI Search: A Large-Scale Experiment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2504.06435
- The paper
- Li, H., & Aral, S. (2025). Human Trust in AI Search: A Large-Scale Experiment. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2504.06435
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.