Replicating Human Motivated Reasoning Studies with LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16130v1
• Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 17:29:07 GMT
• Title: Replicating Human Motivated Reasoning Studies with LLMs
• Authors: Neeley Pate, Adiba Mahbub Proma, Hangfeng He, James N. Druckman, Daniel Molden, Gourab Ghoshal, Ehsan Hoque,
• Abstract summary: We find that base LLM behavior does not align with expected human behavior.<n>We emphasize the importance of these findings for researchers using LLMs to automate tasks such as survey data collection and argument assessment.
• Score: 4.683500829305989
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Motivated reasoning -- the idea that individuals processing information may be motivated to reach a certain conclusion, whether it be accurate or predetermined -- has been well-explored as a human phenomenon. However, it is unclear whether base LLMs mimic these motivational changes. Replicating 4 prior political motivated reasoning studies, we find that base LLM behavior does not align with expected human behavior. Furthermore, base LLM behavior across models shares some similarities, such as smaller standard deviations and inaccurate argument strength assessments. We emphasize the importance of these findings for researchers using LLMs to automate tasks such as survey data collection and argument assessment.

Related papers

• Position: On the Methodological Pitfalls of Evaluating Base LLMs for Reasoning [6.916679603940271]
  Existing work investigates the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to uncover their limitations, human-like biases and underlying processes.<n>We argue that evaluating base LLMs' reasoning capabilities raises inherent methodological concerns that are overlooked in such existing studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T14:55:51Z)
• Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts [79.1081247754018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks.<n>We propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions(CSQ) to quantify the likelihood of deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T14:46:35Z)
• Can Reasoning Help Large Language Models Capture Human Annotator Disagreement? [84.32752330104775]
  Variation in human annotation (i.e., disagreements) is common in NLP.<n>We evaluate the influence of different reasoning settings on Large Language Model disagreement modeling.<n>Surprisingly, our results show that RLVR-style reasoning degrades performance in disagreement modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-24T09:49:26Z)
• Language Models Trained to do Arithmetic Predict Human Risky and Intertemporal Choice [4.029252551781513]
  We propose a novel way to enhance the utility of Large Language Models as cognitive models.<n>We show that an LLM pretrained on an ecologically valid arithmetic dataset, predicts human behavior better than many traditional cognitive models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T17:37:14Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating the Reasoning Behavior of Large Language Models -- A Survey [25.732397636695882]
  Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown impressive performance on tasks involving reasoning. Despite these successes, the depth of LLMs' reasoning abilities remains uncertain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T11:46:31Z)
• Systematic Biases in LLM Simulations of Debates [12.933509143906141]
  We study the limitations of Large Language Models in simulating human interactions.<n>Our findings indicate a tendency for LLM agents to conform to the model's inherent social biases.<n>These results underscore the need for further research to develop methods that help agents overcome these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T14:51:55Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.