Whose Story Gets Told? Positionality and Bias in LLM Summaries of Life Narratives

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.20131v1
• Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 02:58:51 GMT
• Title: Whose Story Gets Told? Positionality and Bias in LLM Summaries of Life Narratives
• Abstract summary: We collaborate with psychologists to study the abstractive claims LLMs make about human life stories.<n>We propose a summarization-based pipeline for surfacing biases in perspective-taking.<n>We demonstrate that our pipeline can identify both race and gender bias with the potential for representational harm.
• Score: 12.34664529332701
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Increasingly, studies are exploring using Large Language Models (LLMs) for accelerated or scaled qualitative analysis of text data. While we can compare LLM accuracy against human labels directly for deductive coding, or labeling text, it is more challenging to judge the ethics and effectiveness of using LLMs in abstractive methods such as inductive thematic analysis. We collaborate with psychologists to study the abstractive claims LLMs make about human life stories, asking, how does using an LLM as an interpreter of meaning affect the conclusions and perspectives of a study? We propose a summarization-based pipeline for surfacing biases in perspective-taking an LLM might employ in interpreting these life stories. We demonstrate that our pipeline can identify both race and gender bias with the potential for representational harm. Finally, we encourage the use of this analysis in future studies involving LLM-based interpretation of study participants' written text or transcribed speech to characterize a positionality portrait for the study.

Related papers

• Data, Not Model: Explaining Bias toward LLM Texts in Neural Retrievers [76.92519309816008]
  Recent studies show that neural retrievers often display source bias, favoring passages generated by LLMs over human-written ones.<n>This bias has been considered an inherent flaw of retrievers, raising concerns about the fairness and reliability of modern information access systems.<n>Our work challenges this view by showing that source bias stems from supervision in retrieval datasets rather than the models themselves.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T17:57:07Z)
• LLM or Human? Perceptions of Trust and Information Quality in Research Summaries [4.14522715241162]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate and edit scientific abstracts.<n>Despite growing adoption, little is known about how readers perceive LLM-generated summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T00:53:38Z)
• LLM-REVal: Can We Trust LLM Reviewers Yet? [70.58742663985652]
  Large language models (LLMs) have inspired researchers to integrate them extensively into the academic workflow.<n>This study focuses on how the deep integration of LLMs into both peer-review and research processes may influence scholarly fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T10:30:20Z)
• How LLMs Comprehend Temporal Meaning in Narratives: A Case Study in Cognitive Evaluation of LLMs [13.822169295436177]
  We investigate how large language models (LLMs) process the temporal meaning of linguistic aspect in narratives that were previously used in human studies.<n>Our findings show that LLMs over-rely on prototypicality, produce inconsistent aspectual judgments, and struggle with causal reasoning derived from aspect.<n>These results suggest that LLMs process aspect fundamentally differently from humans and lack robust narrative understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-18T18:28:35Z)
• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• Multiverse of Greatness: Generating Story Branches with LLMs [0.6283043694426244]
  This paper presents Dynamic Context Prompting/Programming (DCP/P), a novel framework for interacting with LLMs to generate graph-based content with a dynamic context window history. We evaluate DCP/P against our baseline, which does not provide context history to an LLM and only relies on the initial story data. We qualitatively examine the quality of the objectively best-performing generated game from each approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T02:11:37Z)
• The LLM Effect: Are Humans Truly Using LLMs, or Are They Being Influenced By Them Instead? [60.01746782465275]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown capabilities close to human performance in various analytical tasks. This paper investigates the efficiency and accuracy of LLMs in specialized tasks through a structured user study focusing on Human-LLM partnership.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T02:30:18Z)
• LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing [106.45895712717612]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks. This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T01:30:22Z)
• 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)
• "Kelly is a Warm Person, Joseph is a Role Model": Gender Biases in LLM-Generated Reference Letters [97.11173801187816]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently emerged as an effective tool to assist individuals in writing various types of content. This paper critically examines gender biases in LLM-generated reference letters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T16:12:57Z)
• How to use LLMs for Text Analysis [0.0]
  This guide introduces Large Language Models (LLM) as a highly versatile text analysis method within the social sciences. As LLMs are easy-to-use, cheap, fast, and applicable on a broad range of text analysis tasks, many scholars believe that LLMs will transform how we do text analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-24T19:54:15Z)
• Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check [69.97942065617664]
  This paper investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in performing various sentiment analysis tasks. We evaluate performance across 13 tasks on 26 datasets and compare the results against small language models (SLMs) trained on domain-specific datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:45:25Z)

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.