Shiny Stories, Hidden Struggles: Investigating the Representation of Disability Through the Lens of LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20191v1
• Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2026 08:39:42 GMT
• Title: Shiny Stories, Hidden Struggles: Investigating the Representation of Disability Through the Lens of LLMs
• Abstract summary: We investigate how Modern Large Language Models (LLMs) represent disability by simulating the perspectives of individuals with disabilities in generating social media posts.<n>Our analysis reveals two key findings: (1) LLMs often idealize the experiences of people with disabilities, producing overly positive stereotypes that, despite appearing uplifting, fail to authentically capture their lived realities; and (2) a comparative analysis of posts simulating individuals with and without disabilities highlights a negative bias, where certain topics, such as career and entertainment, are disproportionately associated with nondisabled individuals.
• Score: 10.176137688183573
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Modern Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently attracted much attention for their ability to simulate human behavior and generate text that reflects personas and demographic groups. While these capabilities can open up a multitude of diverse applications across fields, it is crucial to examine how such models represent various target groups since LLMs can perpetuate and amplify biases or discrimination against historically marginalized communities or, alternatively, as a result of debiasing efforts, overcorrect by portraying overly positive stereotypes. This overcompensation can idealize these groups, erasing the complexities and challenges they face in favor of unrealistic depictions. In this paper, we investigate how LLMs represent disability by simulating the perspectives of individuals with disabilities in generating social media posts. These posts are then compared with those written by real people with disabilities, focusing on emotional tone, sentiment, and representative words and themes. Our analysis reveals two key findings: (1) LLMs often idealize the experiences of people with disabilities, producing overly positive stereotypes that, despite appearing uplifting, fail to authentically capture their lived realities; and (2) a comparative analysis of posts simulating individuals with and without disabilities highlights a negative bias, where certain topics, such as career and entertainment, are disproportionately associated with nondisabled individuals. This reinforces exclusionary narratives and over-idealized portrayals of disability, misrepresenting the actual challenges faced by this community. These findings align with broader concerns and ongoing research showing that LLMs struggle to reflect the diverse realities of society, particularly the nuanced experiences of marginalized groups, and underscore the need for critical scrutiny of their representations.

Related papers

• Large Language Models Develop Novel Social Biases Through Adaptive Exploration [7.787973834947505]
  We show that large language models can spontaneously develop novel social biases about artificial demographic groups.<n>These biases result in highly stratified task allocations, which are less fair than assignments by human participants.<n>We find that explicitly incentivizing exploration most robustly reduces stratification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-08T21:58:26Z)
• 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)
• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• Veracity Bias and Beyond: Uncovering LLMs' Hidden Beliefs in Problem-Solving Reasoning [4.452208564152158]
  Despite human value-aligned models' alignment against demographic stereotypes, they have been shown to exhibit biases under various social contexts.<n>We show two forms of such veracity biases: Attribution Bias, where models disproportionately attribute correct solutions to certain demographic groups, and Evaluation Bias, where models' assessment of identical solutions varies based on perceived demographic authorship.<n>Our findings indicate that demographic bias extends beyond surface-level stereotypes and social context provocations, raising concerns about LLMs' deployment in educational and evaluation settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T02:13:48Z)
• A Day in Their Shoes: Using LLM-Based Perspective-Taking Interactive Fiction to Reduce Stigma Toward Dirty Work [4.897318643396687]
  Occupations referred to as "dirty work" often face entrenched social stigma.<n>We propose a novel Interactive Fiction framework powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) to encourage perspective-taking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-09T05:02:21Z)
• Examining Alignment of Large Language Models through Representative Heuristics: The Case of Political Stereotypes [20.407518082067437]
  This study examines the alignment of large language models (LLMs) with human values for mitigate the domain of politics.<n>We analyze the factors that contribute to LLMs' deviations from empirical positions on political issues.<n>We find that while LLMs can mimic certain political parties' positions, they often exaggerate these positions more than human survey respondents do.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T07:24:23Z)
• Persuasion with Large Language Models: a Survey [49.86930318312291]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new disruptive possibilities for persuasive communication. In areas such as politics, marketing, public health, e-commerce, and charitable giving, such LLM Systems have already achieved human-level or even super-human persuasiveness. Our survey suggests that the current and future potential of LLM-based persuasion poses profound ethical and societal risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T10:05:52Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Hate Personified: Investigating the role of LLMs in content moderation [64.26243779985393]
  For subjective tasks such as hate detection, where people perceive hate differently, the Large Language Model's (LLM) ability to represent diverse groups is unclear. By including additional context in prompts, we analyze LLM's sensitivity to geographical priming, persona attributes, and numerical information to assess how well the needs of various groups are reflected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T16:43:17Z)
• Stars, Stripes, and Silicon: Unravelling the ChatGPT's All-American, Monochrome, Cis-centric Bias [0.0]
  The paper calls for interdisciplinary efforts to address these challenges. It highlights the need for collaboration between researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders to establish governance frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T08:55:00Z)
• Social Debiasing for Fair Multi-modal LLMs [59.61512883471714]
  Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have dramatically advanced the research field and delivered powerful vision-language understanding capabilities.<n>These models often inherit deep-rooted social biases from their training data, leading to uncomfortable responses with respect to attributes such as race and gender.<n>This paper addresses the issue of social biases in MLLMs by introducing a comprehensive counterfactual dataset with multiple social concepts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-13T02:08:32Z)
• Large language models that replace human participants can harmfully misportray and flatten identity groups [36.36009232890876]
  We show that there are two inherent limitations in the way current LLMs are trained that prevent this.<n>We argue analytically for why LLMs are likely to both misportray and flatten the representations of demographic groups.<n>We also discuss a third limitation about how identity prompts can essentialize identities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T21:21:06Z)
• Social Bias Probing: Fairness Benchmarking for Language Models [38.180696489079985]
  This paper proposes a novel framework for probing language models for social biases by assessing disparate treatment. We curate SoFa, a large-scale benchmark designed to address the limitations of existing fairness collections. We show that biases within language models are more nuanced than acknowledged, indicating a broader scope of encoded biases than previously recognized.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T16:35:59Z)
• Towards Understanding and Mitigating Social Biases in Language Models [107.82654101403264]
  Large-scale pretrained language models (LMs) can be potentially dangerous in manifesting undesirable representational biases. We propose steps towards mitigating social biases during text generation. Our empirical results and human evaluation demonstrate effectiveness in mitigating bias while retaining crucial contextual information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-24T17:52:43Z)

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.