Prompt Perturbations Reveal Human-Like Biases in LLM Survey Responses

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07188v2
• Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 18:02:56 GMT
• Title: Prompt Perturbations Reveal Human-Like Biases in LLM Survey Responses
• Authors: Jens Rupprecht, Georg Ahnert, Markus Strohmaier,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxies for human subjects in social science surveys.<n>This paper investigates the response robustness of LLMs in normative survey contexts.
• Score: 1.7170969275523118
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxies for human subjects in social science surveys, but their reliability and susceptibility to known response biases are poorly understood. This paper investigates the response robustness of LLMs in normative survey contexts - we test nine diverse LLMs on questions from the World Values Survey (WVS), applying a comprehensive set of 11 perturbations to both question phrasing and answer option structure, resulting in over 167,000 simulated interviews. In doing so, we not only reveal LLMs' vulnerabilities to perturbations but also show that all tested models exhibit a consistent recency bias varying in intensity, disproportionately favoring the last-presented answer option. While larger models are generally more robust, all models remain sensitive to semantic variations like paraphrasing and to combined perturbations. By applying a set of perturbations, we reveal that LLMs partially align with survey response biases identified in humans. This underscores the critical importance of prompt design and robustness testing when using LLMs to generate synthetic survey data.

Related papers

• Leveraging Interview-Informed LLMs to Model Survey Responses: Comparative Insights from AI-Generated and Human Data [4.774576759157642]
  Mixed methods research integrates quantitative and qualitative data but faces challenges in aligning their distinct structures.<n>This study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably predict human survey responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T05:57:26Z)
• Reasoning Capabilities and Invariability of Large Language Models [49.23570751696334]
  We aim to provide a comprehensive analysis of Large Language Models' reasoning competence.<n>We introduce a new benchmark dataset with a series of simple reasoning questions demanding shallow logical reasoning.<n>An empirical analysis involving zero-shot and few-shot prompting across 24 LLMs of different sizes reveals that, while LLMs with over 70 billion parameters perform better in the zero-shot setting, there is still a large room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-01T18:12:30Z)
• Llms, Virtual Users, and Bias: Predicting Any Survey Question Without Human Data [0.0]
  We use Large Language Models (LLMs) to create virtual populations that answer survey questions.<n>We evaluate several LLMs-including GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, Claude 3.5-Sonnet, and versions of the Llama and Mistral models-comparing their performance to that of a traditional Random Forests algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T16:27:20Z)
• Uncertainty Quantification for LLM-Based Survey Simulations [9.303339416902995]
  We investigate the use of large language models (LLMs) to simulate human responses to survey questions.<n>Our approach converts imperfect LLM-simulated responses into confidence sets for population parameters.<n>A key innovation lies in determining the optimal number of simulated responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T02:07:29Z)
• Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and Inconsistencies [66.30619782227173]
  Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing.<n>We identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance.<n>We find that explanations increase reliance on both correct and incorrect responses.<n>We observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T16:35:41Z)
• A Theory of Response Sampling in LLMs: Part Descriptive and Part Prescriptive [53.08398658452411]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in autonomous decision-making.<n>We show that this sampling behavior resembles that of human decision-making.<n>We show that this deviation of a sample from the statistical norm towards a prescriptive component consistently appears in concepts across diverse real-world domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z)
• You don't need a personality test to know these models are unreliable: Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Models on Psychometric Instruments [37.03210795084276]
  We examine whether the current format of prompting Large Language Models elicits responses in a consistent and robust manner. Our experiments on 17 different LLMs reveal that even simple perturbations significantly downgrade a model's question-answering ability. Our results suggest that the currently widespread practice of prompting is insufficient to accurately and reliably capture model perceptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T09:50:53Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)

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.