Reading Too Much Into It? Interpretive Preferences and Commitment in LLM Mentalisation under Ambiguity

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for interpersonal advice, potentially shaping how users interpret ambiguous social encounters. Existing Theory of Mind evaluations typically rely on predefined answers, while uncertainty research overlooks LLMs' preferred explanations and confidence under psychological distress. To address these gaps, we introduce MentalLoom, a novel evaluation of LLM mentalisation comprising 604 ambiguous social episodes, matched depression and social anxiety disclosures, and four-turn dialogues with unchanged event evidence. Across eight LLMs, disclosures initially elicited more negative explanations overall but more positive narrator-directed interpretations. Scripted repeated questioning showed greater emotional support, stronger positive narrator-directed endorsement, and higher certainty without new event evidence. These findings show that user context can reshape interpretive preferences and commitment while the underlying ambiguity remains unresolved.