Large Language Models Show Human-like Social Desirability Biases in Survey Responses
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.06058v2
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 21:39:04 GMT
- Title: Large Language Models Show Human-like Social Desirability Biases in Survey Responses
- Authors: Aadesh Salecha, Molly E. Ireland, Shashanka Subrahmanya, João Sedoc, Lyle H. Ungar, Johannes C. Eichstaedt,
- Abstract summary: We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) skew their scores towards the desirable ends of trait dimensions when personality evaluation is inferred.
This bias exists in all tested models, including GPT-4/3.5, Claude 3, Llama 3, and PaLM-2.
reverse-coding all the questions decreases bias levels but does not eliminate them, suggesting that this effect cannot be attributed to acquiescence bias.
- Score: 12.767606361552684
- License:
- Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) become widely used to model and simulate human behavior, understanding their biases becomes critical. We developed an experimental framework using Big Five personality surveys and uncovered a previously undetected social desirability bias in a wide range of LLMs. By systematically varying the number of questions LLMs were exposed to, we demonstrate their ability to infer when they are being evaluated. When personality evaluation is inferred, LLMs skew their scores towards the desirable ends of trait dimensions (i.e., increased extraversion, decreased neuroticism, etc). This bias exists in all tested models, including GPT-4/3.5, Claude 3, Llama 3, and PaLM-2. Bias levels appear to increase in more recent models, with GPT-4's survey responses changing by 1.20 (human) standard deviations and Llama 3's by 0.98 standard deviations-very large effects. This bias is robust to randomization of question order and paraphrasing. Reverse-coding all the questions decreases bias levels but does not eliminate them, suggesting that this effect cannot be attributed to acquiescence bias. Our findings reveal an emergent social desirability bias and suggest constraints on profiling LLMs with psychometric tests and on using LLMs as proxies for human participants.
Related papers
- Explicit vs. Implicit: Investigating Social Bias in Large Language Models through Self-Reflection [5.800102484016876]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit various biases and stereotypes in their generated content.
This paper presents a systematic framework grounded in social psychology theories to investigate explicit and implicit biases in LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-01-04T14:08:52Z) - Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models: A Survey and Mitigation Experiments [24.15688619889342]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on large corpora written by humans and demonstrate high performance on various tasks.
As humans are susceptible to cognitive biases, LLMs can also be influenced by these biases, leading to irrational decision-making.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-30T02:37:59Z) - Towards Implicit Bias Detection and Mitigation in Multi-Agent LLM Interactions [25.809599403713506]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being employed in numerous studies to simulate societies and execute diverse social tasks.
LLMs are susceptible to societal biases due to their exposure to human-generated data.
This study investigates the presence of implicit gender biases in multi-agent LLM interactions and proposes two strategies to mitigate these biases.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-03T15:28:05Z) - Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinement [75.7148545929689]
Large language models (LLMs) improve their performance through self-feedback on certain tasks while degrade on others.
We formally define LLM's self-bias - the tendency to favor its own generation.
We analyze six LLMs on translation, constrained text generation, and mathematical reasoning tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-18T03:10:39Z) - GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language
Models [83.30078426829627]
Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community.
The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability.
We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z) - Are You Sure? Challenging LLMs Leads to Performance Drops in The
FlipFlop Experiment [82.60594940370919]
We propose the FlipFlop experiment to study the multi-turn behavior of Large Language Models (LLMs)
We show that models flip their answers on average 46% of the time and that all models see a deterioration of accuracy between their first and final prediction, with an average drop of 17% (the FlipFlop effect)
We conduct finetuning experiments on an open-source LLM and find that finetuning on synthetically created data can mitigate - reducing performance deterioration by 60% - but not resolve sycophantic behavior entirely.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-14T23:40:22Z) - Challenging the Validity of Personality Tests for Large Language Models [2.9123921488295768]
Large language models (LLMs) behave increasingly human-like in text-based interactions.
LLMs' responses to personality tests systematically deviate from human responses.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-09T11:54:01Z) - Bias Runs Deep: Implicit Reasoning Biases in Persona-Assigned LLMs [67.51906565969227]
We study the unintended side-effects of persona assignment on the ability of LLMs to perform basic reasoning tasks.
Our study covers 24 reasoning datasets, 4 LLMs, and 19 diverse personas (e.g. an Asian person) spanning 5 socio-demographic groups.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-08T18:52:17Z) - Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey
design [66.1850490474361]
We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all.
We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires.
Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z) - Can ChatGPT Assess Human Personalities? A General Evaluation Framework [70.90142717649785]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have produced impressive results in various areas, but their potential human-like psychology is still largely unexplored.
This paper presents a generic evaluation framework for LLMs to assess human personalities based on Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) tests.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-01T06:16:14Z)
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.