Trust Over Fear: How Motivation Framing in System Prompts Affects AI Agent Debugging Depth

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.14373v1
• Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2026 13:25:52 GMT
• Title: Trust Over Fear: How Motivation Framing in System Prompts Affects AI Agent Debugging Depth
• Abstract summary: We present two studies investigating how trust-based versus fear-based motivation framing in system prompts influences AI agent performance.<n>Trust-framed agents found 59% more hidden issues while taking 83% more investigative steps.<n>Fear-framed (PUA) agents showed no significant improvement over baseline on any metric.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: System prompts for AI coding agents increasingly employ motivational framing -- from neutral task descriptions to fear-driven threats -- yet no controlled study has examined whether such framing affects agent behavior. We present two studies investigating how trust-based versus fear-based motivation framing in system prompts influences AI agent debugging performance. In Study 1, we conducted a controlled manual experiment comparing a trust-framed methodology (NoPUA) against an unframed baseline across 9 debugging scenarios using Claude Sonnet 4. Trust-framed agents found 59% more hidden issues (p = 0.002, d = 2.28) while taking 83% more investigative steps, despite finding 15% fewer surface-level issues -- revealing a depth-over-breadth tradeoff in investigation strategy. In Study 2, we replicated and extended these findings with 5 independent automated runs across 3 conditions (Baseline, NoPUA trust-framed, PUA fear-framed), yielding 135 scenario-level data points. Trust-framed agents again showed significant advantages: +74% investigative steps (p = 0.008) and +25% hidden issues found (p = 0.016). Crucially, fear-framed (PUA) agents showed no significant improvement over baseline on any metric (all p > 0.3), demonstrating that fear-based motivation is ineffective for AI agents. We ground these findings in Self-Determination Theory, regulatory focus theory, and satisficing models, arguing that trust-based framing induces exploration-oriented, promotion-focused behavior while fear-based framing fails to shift agents from default satisficing strategies. Our results suggest that the motivational frame of system prompts -- not just their technical content -- causally influences AI agent investigation depth.

Related papers

• Breadcrumbing Search Agents [118.20284823674382]
  LLM-based search agents are widely used for information-seeking tasks, but their reliance on external tool returns introduces a critical security risk.<n>We show that the channel delivering search and page observations is a fragile security boundary.<n>Under a constrained tool-intermediary threat model, appending only one controlled result per query can substantially increase attack success.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T07:57:27Z)
• Perception, Verdict, and Evolution: Hindsight-Driven Self-Refining Forensics Agent for AI-Generated Image Detection [80.15317858033534]
  ForeAgent is an agentic forensics framework for AI-generated image detection with iterative self-evolution.<n>ForeAgent achieves state-of-the-art performance on the Chameleon benchmark, reaching 82.18% accuracy.<n>ForeAgent produces more consistent and causally grounded reasoning compared to GPT-5 and GPT-5-mini.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-25T02:59:33Z)
• The Capability Paradox: How Smarter Auditors Make Multi-Agent Systems Less Secure [11.822284421559814]
  We identify semantic hijacking, an attack in which harmful requests are concealed within domain-specific narratives and propagated to a Manager through Worker reports.<n>As Worker capability increases, the mean system-level Attack Success Rate (ASR) increases from 18.4% to 63.9%, peaking at 94.4%.<n>We propose heterogeneous ensemble verification, which pairs Workers of asymmetric domain competence so their complementary vulnerabilities break the certainty-to-execution chain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T14:42:44Z)
• Measuring and Exploiting Confirmation Bias in LLM-Assisted Security Code Review [6.417595678110472]
  We study whether confirmation bias affects LLM-based vulnerability detection, and whether this failure mode can be exploited in software supply-chain attacks.<n>Study 1 quantifies confirmation bias through controlled experiments on 250 CVE vulnerability/patch pairs evaluated across four state-of-the-art models under five framing conditions for the review prompt.<n>Study 2 evaluates exploitability in practice mimicking adversarial pull requests that reintroduce known vulnerabilities while framed as security improvements or urgent functionality fixes via their pull request metadata.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T10:40:27Z)
• Re-Evaluating EVMBench: Are AI Agents Ready for Smart Contract Security? [10.248746359119625]
  EVMbench is the first large-scale benchmark for AI agents on smart contract security.<n>Its results have fueled expectations that fully automated AI auditing is within reach.<n>These findings challenge the narrative that fully automated AI auditing is imminent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T14:07:16Z)
• Intentional Deception as Controllable Capability in LLM Agents [0.0]
  We present a systematic study of intentional deception as an engineered capability in multi-agent systems.<n>We investigate a two-stage system that infers target agent characteristics and generates deceptive responses steering targets toward actions counter to their beliefs and motivations.<n>We find that deceptive intervention produces differential effects concentrated in specific behavioral profiles rather than distributed uniformly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-08T23:48:49Z)
• GT-HarmBench: Benchmarking AI Safety Risks Through the Lens of Game Theory [8.38197391178077]
  We introduce GT-HarmBench, a benchmark of 2,009 high-stakes scenarios spanning game-theoretic structures.<n>We measure sensitivity to game-theoretic prompt framing and ordering, and analyze reasoning patterns driving failures.<n>Our results highlight substantial reliability gaps and provide a broad standardized testbed for studying alignment in multi-agent environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T17:29:52Z)
• It's a TRAP! Task-Redirecting Agent Persuasion Benchmark for Web Agents [52.81924177620322]
  Web-based agents powered by large language models are increasingly used for tasks such as email management or professional networking.<n>Their reliance on dynamic web content makes them vulnerable to prompt injection attacks: adversarial instructions hidden in interface elements that persuade the agent to divert from its original task.<n>We introduce the Task-Redirecting Agent Persuasion Benchmark (TRAP), an evaluation for studying how persuasion techniques misguide autonomous web agents on realistic tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T01:09:10Z)
• Penetration Testing of Agentic AI: A Comparative Security Analysis Across Models and Frameworks [0.0]
  Agentic AI introduces security vulnerabilities that traditional LLM safeguards fail to address.<n>We conduct the first systematic testing and comparative evaluation of agentic AI systems.<n>We identify six distinct defensive behavior patterns including a novel "hallucinated compliance" strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-16T19:22:50Z)
• Learning to Seek Evidence: A Verifiable Reasoning Agent with Causal Faithfulness Analysis [10.749786847079163]
  Explanations for AI models in high-stakes domains like medicine often lack verifiability, which can hinder trust.<n>We propose an interactive agent that produces explanations through an auditable sequence of actions.<n>This policy is optimized using reinforcement learning, resulting in a model that is both efficient and generalizable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-03T10:21:35Z)
• Shoot First, Ask Questions Later? Building Rational Agents that Explore and Act Like People [81.63702981397408]
  Given limited resources, to what extent do agents based on language models (LMs) act rationally?<n>We develop methods to benchmark and enhance agentic information-seeking, drawing on insights from human behavior.<n>For Spotter agents, our approach boosts accuracy by up to 14.7% absolute over LM-only baselines; for Captain agents, it raises expected information gain (EIG) by up to 0.227 bits (94.2% of the achievable noise ceiling)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T17:57:28Z)
• Can an Individual Manipulate the Collective Decisions of Multi-Agents? [53.01767232004823]
  M-Spoiler is a framework that simulates agent interactions within a multi-agent system to generate adversarial samples.<n>M-Spoiler introduces a stubborn agent that actively aids in optimizing adversarial samples.<n>Our findings confirm the risks posed by the knowledge of an individual agent in multi-agent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-20T01:54:20Z)
• Illusions of Relevance: Using Content Injection Attacks to Deceive Retrievers, Rerankers, and LLM Judges [52.96987928118327]
  We find that embedding models for retrieval, rerankers, and large language model (LLM) relevance judges are vulnerable to content injection attacks.<n>We identify two primary threats: (1) inserting unrelated or harmful content within passages that still appear deceptively "relevant", and (2) inserting entire queries or key query terms into passages to boost their perceived relevance.<n>Our study systematically examines the factors that influence an attack's success, such as the placement of injected content and the balance between relevant and non-relevant material.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-30T18:02:15Z)
• On the Resilience of LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration with Faulty Agents [58.79302663733703]
  Large language model-based multi-agent systems have shown great abilities across various tasks due to the collaboration of expert agents.<n>The impact of clumsy or even malicious agents--those who frequently make errors in their tasks--on the overall performance of the system remains underexplored.<n>This paper investigates what is the resilience of various system structures under faulty agents on different downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T03:25:20Z)
• Dissecting Adversarial Robustness of Multimodal LM Agents [70.2077308846307]
  We manually create 200 targeted adversarial tasks and evaluation scripts in a realistic threat model on top of VisualWebArena.<n>We find that we can successfully break latest agents that use black-box frontier LMs, including those that perform reflection and tree search.<n>We also use ARE to rigorously evaluate how the robustness changes as new components are added.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T17:32:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.