Overstating Attitudes, Ignoring Networks: LLM Biases in Simulating Misinformation Susceptibility

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.04674v1
• Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 15:48:05 GMT
• Title: Overstating Attitudes, Ignoring Networks: LLM Biases in Simulating Misinformation Susceptibility
• Authors: Eun Cheol Choi, Lindsay E. Young, Emilio Ferrara,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxies for human judgment in computational social science.<n>We test whether LLM-simulated survey respondents can reproduce human patterns of misinformation belief and sharing.
• Score: 7.616305266104683
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxies for human judgment in computational social science, yet their ability to reproduce patterns of susceptibility to misinformation remains unclear. We test whether LLM-simulated survey respondents, prompted with participant profiles drawn from social survey data measuring network, demographic, attitudinal and behavioral features, can reproduce human patterns of misinformation belief and sharing. Using three online surveys as baselines, we evaluate whether LLM outputs match observed response distributions and recover feature-outcome associations present in the original survey data. LLM-generated responses capture broad distributional tendencies and show modest correlation with human responses, but consistently overstate the association between belief and sharing. Linear models fit to simulated responses exhibit substantially higher explained variance and place disproportionate weight on attitudinal and behavioral features, while largely ignoring personal network characteristics, relative to models fit to human responses. Analyses of model-generated reasoning and LLM training data suggest that these distortions reflect systematic biases in how misinformation-related concepts are represented. Our findings suggest that LLM-based survey simulations are better suited for diagnosing systematic divergences from human judgment than for substituting it.

Related papers

• Individual Turing Test: A Case Study of LLM-based Simulation Using Longitudinal Personal Data [54.145424717168794]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable human-like capabilities, yet their ability to replicate a specific individual remains under-explored.<n>This paper presents a case study to investigate LLM-based individual simulation with a volunteer-contributed archive of private messaging history spanning over ten years.<n>We propose the "Individual Turing Test" to evaluate whether acquaintances of the volunteer can correctly identify which response in a multi-candidate pool most plausibly comes from the volunteer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-01T21:46:27Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Persona-Conditioned LLMs as Synthetic Survey Respondents [0.4277616907160855]
  We use a large dataset of U.S. microdata to assess the impact of persona-conditioned simulations.<n>We find that persona prompting does not yield a clear aggregate improvement in survey alignment and, in many cases, significantly degrades performance.<n>Our findings highlight a key adverse impact of current persona-based simulation practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T15:13:59Z)
• Can Finetuing LLMs on Small Human Samples Increase Heterogeneity, Alignment, and Belief-Action Coherence? [9.310571879281186]
  Large language models (LLMs) can serve as substitutes for human participants in survey and experimental research.<n>LLMs often fail to align with real human behavior, exhibiting limited diversity, systematic misalignment for minority subgroups, insufficient within-group variance, and discrepancies between stated beliefs and actions.<n>This study examines whether fine-tuning on a small subset of human survey data, such as that obtainable from a pilot study, can mitigate these issues and yield realistic simulated outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T09:50:42Z)
• Prompts to Proxies: Emulating Human Preferences via a Compact LLM Ensemble [46.82793004650415]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promise in emulating human-like responses across a range of tasks.<n>We propose a novel alignment framework that treats LLMs as agent proxies for human survey respondents.<n>We introduce P2P, a system that steers LLM agents toward representative behavioral patterns using structured prompt engineering, entropy-based sampling, and regression-based selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-14T15:08:45Z)
• 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)
• MF-LLM: Simulating Population Decision Dynamics via a Mean-Field Large Language Model Framework [53.82097200295448]
  Mean-Field LLM (MF-LLM) is first to incorporate mean field theory into social simulation.<n>MF-LLM models bidirectional interactions between individuals and the population through an iterative process.<n> IB-Tune is a novel fine-tuning method inspired by the Information Bottleneck principle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T12:41:51Z)
• Human Preferences in Large Language Model Latent Space: A Technical Analysis on the Reliability of Synthetic Data in Voting Outcome Prediction [5.774786149181393]
  We analyze how demographic attributes and prompt variations influence latent opinion mappings in large language models (LLMs)<n>We find that LLM-generated data fails to replicate the variance observed in real-world human responses.<n>In the political space, persona-to-party mappings exhibit limited differentiation, resulting in synthetic data that lacks the nuanced distribution of opinions found in survey data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-22T16:25:33Z)
• LLM-Mirror: A Generated-Persona Approach for Survey Pre-Testing [0.0]
  We investigate whether providing respondents' prior information can replicate both statistical distributions and individual decision-making patterns.<n>We also introduce the concept of the LLM-Mirror, user personas generated by supplying respondent-specific information to the LLM.<n>Our findings show that: (1) PLS-SEM analysis shows LLM-generated responses align with human responses, (2) LLMs are capable of reproducing individual human responses, and (3) LLM-Mirror responses closely follow human responses at the individual level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-04T09:39:56Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)

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.