How Individual Traits and Language Styles Shape Preferences In Open-ended User-LLM Interaction: A Preliminary Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17083v1
• Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 20:14:03 GMT
• Title: How Individual Traits and Language Styles Shape Preferences In Open-ended User-LLM Interaction: A Preliminary Study
• Authors: Rendi Chevi, Kentaro Inui, Thamar Solorio, Alham Fikri Aji,
• Abstract summary: LLM's language style does indeed influence user's preferences, but how and which language styles influence the preference varied across different user populations, and more interestingly, moderated by the user's very own individual traits.<n>Our future directions will first aim to address these limitations, which would enable a more comprehensive joint effect analysis between the language style, individual traits, and preferences, and further investigate the potential causal relationship between and beyond these variables.
• Score: 32.53638485900923
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: What makes an interaction with the LLM more preferable for the user? While it is intuitive to assume that information accuracy in the LLM's responses would be one of the influential variables, recent studies have found that inaccurate LLM's responses could still be preferable when they are perceived to be more authoritative, certain, well-articulated, or simply verbose. These variables interestingly fall under the broader category of language style, implying that the style in the LLM's responses might meaningfully influence users' preferences. This hypothesized dynamic could have double-edged consequences: enhancing the overall user experience while simultaneously increasing their susceptibility to risks such as LLM's misinformation or hallucinations. In this short paper, we present our preliminary studies in exploring this subject. Through a series of exploratory and experimental user studies, we found that LLM's language style does indeed influence user's preferences, but how and which language styles influence the preference varied across different user populations, and more interestingly, moderated by the user's very own individual traits. As a preliminary work, the findings in our studies should be interpreted with caution, particularly given the limitations in our samples, which still need wider demographic diversity and larger sample sizes. Our future directions will first aim to address these limitations, which would enable a more comprehensive joint effect analysis between the language style, individual traits, and preferences, and further investigate the potential causal relationship between and beyond these variables.

Related papers

• Higher-Order Binding of Language Model Virtual Personas: a Study on Approximating Political Partisan Misperceptions [4.234771450043289]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of simulating human behavior. We propose a novel methodology for constructing virtual personas with synthetic user backstories" generated as extended, multi-turn interview transcripts. Our generated backstories are longer, rich in detail, and consistent in authentically describing a singular individual, compared to previous methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T00:10:34Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• Aligning LLMs with Individual Preferences via Interaction [51.72200436159636]
  We train large language models (LLMs) that can ''interact to align'' We develop a multi-turn preference dataset containing 3K+ multi-turn conversations in tree structures. For evaluation, we establish the ALOE benchmark, consisting of 100 carefully selected examples and well-designed metrics to measure the customized alignment performance during conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T17:48:29Z)
• Modulating Language Model Experiences through Frictions [56.17593192325438]
  Over-consumption of language model outputs risks propagating unchecked errors in the short-term and damaging human capabilities for critical thinking in the long-term. We propose selective frictions for language model experiences, inspired by behavioral science interventions, to dampen misuse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T16:31:11Z)
• "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust [51.542856739181474]
  We show how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T16:43:55Z)
• Scaling Data Diversity for Fine-Tuning Language Models in Human Alignment [84.32768080422349]
  Alignment with human preference prevents large language models from generating misleading or toxic content. We propose a new formulation of prompt diversity, implying a linear correlation with the final performance of LLMs after fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-17T07:08:55Z)
• Dissecting Human and LLM Preferences [80.55271307662365]
  We find that humans are less sensitive to errors, favor responses that support their stances, and show clear dislike when models admit their limits. advanced LLMs like GPT-4-Turbo emphasize correctness, clarity, and harmlessness more. We show that preference-based evaluation can be intentionally manipulated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T14:34:31Z)
• Quantifying the Persona Effect in LLM Simulations [25.367927300697424]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable promise in simulating human language and behavior. This study investigates how integrating persona variables-demographic, social, and behavioral factors-impacts LLMs' ability to simulate diverse perspectives. We find that persona variables account for 10% variance in annotations in existing subjective NLP datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T16:35:35Z)
• Eliciting Personality Traits in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being utilized by both candidates and employers in the recruitment context. This study seeks to obtain a better understanding of such models by examining their output variations based on different input prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T10:09:00Z)
• 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 LLMs Capture Human Preferences? [5.683832910692926]
  We explore the viability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in emulating human survey respondents and eliciting preferences. We compare responses from LLMs across various languages and compare them to human responses, exploring preferences between smaller, sooner, and larger, later rewards. Our findings reveal that both GPT models demonstrate less patience than humans, with GPT-3.5 exhibiting a lexicographic preference for earlier rewards, unlike human decision-makers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-04T03:51:31Z)

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.