Large Language Models Do Not Simulate Human Psychology

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06950v3
• Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:59:57 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models Do Not Simulate Human Psychology
• Authors: Sarah Schröder, Thekla Morgenroth, Ulrike Kuhl, Valerie Vaquet, Benjamin Paaßen,
• Abstract summary: Some research has suggested that Large Language Models (LLMs) may even be able to simulate human psychology.<n>We provide conceptual arguments against the hypothesis that LLMs simulate human psychology.<n>We show that slight changes to wording that correspond to large changes in meaning lead to notable discrepancies between LLMs' and human responses.
• Score: 0.8039067099377079
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs),such as ChatGPT, are increasingly used in research, ranging from simple writing assistance to complex data annotation tasks. Recently, some research has suggested that LLMs may even be able to simulate human psychology and can, hence, replace human participants in psychological studies. We caution against this approach. We provide conceptual arguments against the hypothesis that LLMs simulate human psychology. We then present empiric evidence illustrating our arguments by demonstrating that slight changes to wording that correspond to large changes in meaning lead to notable discrepancies between LLMs' and human responses, even for the recent CENTAUR model that was specifically fine-tuned on psychological responses. Additionally, different LLMs show very different responses to novel items, further illustrating their lack of reliability. We conclude that LLMs do not simulate human psychology and recommend that psychological researchers should treat LLMs as useful but fundamentally unreliable tools that need to be validated against human responses for every new application.

Related papers

• MindShift: Analyzing Language Models' Reactions to Psychological Prompts [6.696296750931842]
  Large language models (LLMs) hold the potential to absorb and reflect personality traits and attitudes specified by users.<n>Our study introduces MindShift, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs' psychological adaptability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T21:56:54Z)
• Social Simulations with Large Language Model Risk Utopian Illusion [61.358959720048354]
  We introduce a systematic framework for analyzing large language models' behavior in social simulation.<n>Our approach simulates multi-agent interactions through chatroom-style conversations and analyzes them across five linguistic dimensions.<n>Our findings reveal that LLMs do not faithfully reproduce genuine human behavior but instead reflect overly idealized versions of it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T06:08:41Z)
• How Deep is Love in LLMs' Hearts? Exploring Semantic Size in Human-like Cognition [75.11808682808065]
  This study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar tendencies in understanding semantic size.<n>Our findings reveal that multi-modal training is crucial for LLMs to achieve more human-like understanding.<n> Lastly, we examine whether LLMs are influenced by attention-grabbing headlines with larger semantic sizes in a real-world web shopping scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-01T03:35:56Z)
• Take Caution in Using LLMs as Human Surrogates: Scylla Ex Machina [7.155982875107922]
  Studies suggest large language models (LLMs) can exhibit human-like reasoning, aligning with human behavior in economic experiments, surveys, and political discourse.<n>This has led many to propose that LLMs can be used as surrogates or simulations for humans in social science research.<n>We assess the reasoning depth of LLMs using the 11-20 money request game.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T14:46:07Z)
• Cognitive phantoms in LLMs through the lens of latent variables [0.3441021278275805]
  Large language models (LLMs) increasingly reach real-world applications, necessitating a better understanding of their behaviour. Recent studies administering psychometric questionnaires to LLMs report human-like traits in LLMs, potentially influencing behaviour. This approach suffers from a validity problem: it presupposes that these traits exist in LLMs and that they are measurable with tools designed for humans. This study investigates this problem by comparing latent structures of personality between humans and three LLMs using two validated personality questionnaires.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T12:42:35Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models with Psychometrics [59.821829073478376]
  This paper offers a comprehensive benchmark for quantifying psychological constructs of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our work identifies five key psychological constructs -- personality, values, emotional intelligence, theory of mind, and self-efficacy -- assessed through a suite of 13 datasets.<n>We uncover significant discrepancies between LLMs' self-reported traits and their response patterns in real-world scenarios, revealing complexities in their behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T16:09:08Z)
• Limited Ability of LLMs to Simulate Human Psychological Behaviours: a Psychometric Analysis [0.27309692684728604]
  We prompt OpenAI's flagship models, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, to assume different personas and respond to a range of standardized measures of personality constructs. We found that the responses from GPT-4, but not GPT-3.5, using generic persona descriptions show promising, albeit not perfect, psychometric properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-12T10:52:15Z)
• 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)
• Revisiting the Reliability of Psychological Scales on Large Language Models [62.57981196992073]
  This study aims to determine the reliability of applying personality assessments to Large Language Models. Analysis of 2,500 settings per model, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini-Pro, and LLaMA-3.1, reveals that various LLMs show consistency in responses to the Big Five Inventory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T15:03:28Z)
• Inducing anxiety in large language models can induce bias [47.85323153767388]
  We focus on twelve established large language models (LLMs) and subject them to a questionnaire commonly used in psychiatry. Our results show that six of the latest LLMs respond robustly to the anxiety questionnaire, producing comparable anxiety scores to humans. Anxiety-induction not only influences LLMs' scores on an anxiety questionnaire but also influences their behavior in a previously-established benchmark measuring biases such as racism and ageism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-21T16:29:43Z)

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.