Topics as Proxies for Sociodemographics: How Conversational Context Affects LLM Answers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.02776v3
• Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 17:00:24 GMT
• Title: Topics as Proxies for Sociodemographics: How Conversational Context Affects LLM Answers
• Abstract summary: We show that large language models (LLMs) struggle to infer user sociodemographics from a single conversation history.<n>We find that conversation topics are most predictive of LLM-generated advice within a conversational context.
• Score: 15.52302216152217
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: When large language models (LLMs) are used in high-stakes scenarios, such as legal, medical and financial advice, even a single conversation history is enough to drive differences in outcomes between users. Prior work has demonstrated that this results in outcome disparities between sociodemographic groups, with some groups receiving more advantageous outcomes than others. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs actually struggle to infer user sociodemographics from a single conversation history and that although there are disparities between sociodemographic groups, they are minimal in magnitude. To investigate what the main driver of these disparities is, we compare user sociodemographics to a range of (psycho)linguistic features of conversations, including conversation topic, emotions, and readability. We find that conversation topics are most predictive of LLM-generated advice within a conversational context, which, to some extent, function as proxies for sociodemographic groups and often affect advice in unpredictable ways. This is cause for concern and highlights the need for future research to better understand and, if needed, mitigate the effect of conversational context on LLM outputs in high-stakes scenarios.

Related papers

• Persuasive and Compliant Tendencies Predict Group Decision-Making in Humans and Language Models [65.21691850622413]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in group decision-making with humans.<n>We introduce DecisionQE, a questionnaire-based framework for measuring each model's persuasive and compliant tendencies.<n>We show that stronger persuasive tendency does not significantly improve group outcomes, whereas compliant-oriented models show more stable advantages in cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T15:50:56Z)
• The Prompt Makes the Person(a): A Systematic Evaluation of Sociodemographic Persona Prompting for Large Language Models [7.819021910077221]
  We examine how different persona prompt strategies influence large language models (LLMs)<n>We find that the choice of demographic priming and role adoption strategy significantly impacts their portrayal.<n>Specifically, we find that prompting in an interview-style format and name-based priming can help reduce stereotyping.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-21T21:23:29Z)
• How large language models judge and influence human cooperation [82.07571393247476]
  We assess how state-of-the-art language models judge cooperative actions.<n>We observe a remarkable agreement in evaluating cooperation against good opponents.<n>We show that the differences revealed between models can significantly impact the prevalence of cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T09:14:42Z)
• 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)
• Multimodal Conversation Structure Understanding [12.29827265137757]
  Large language models' ability to understand fine-grained conversational structure remains underexplored.<n>We present a human annotated dataset of 4,398 annotations for speakers and reply-to relationship, 5,755 addressees, and 3,142 side-participants.<n>We evaluate popular audio-visual LLMs and vision-language models on our dataset, and our experimental results suggest that multimodal conversational structure understanding remains challenging.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T06:41:54Z)
• 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)
• Are Social Sentiments Inherent in LLMs? An Empirical Study on Extraction of Inter-demographic Sentiments [14.143299702954023]
  This study focuses on social groups defined in terms of nationality, religion, and race/ethnicity. We input questions regarding sentiments from one group to another into LLMs, apply sentiment analysis to the responses, and compare the results with social surveys.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T08:13:25Z)
• Beware of Words: Evaluating the Lexical Diversity of Conversational LLMs using ChatGPT as Case Study [3.0059120458540383]
  We consider the evaluation of the lexical richness of the text generated by conversational Large Language Models (LLMs) and how it depends on the model parameters. The results show how lexical richness depends on the version of ChatGPT and some of its parameters, such as the presence penalty, or on the role assigned to the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-11T13:41:17Z)
• Generative Echo Chamber? Effects of LLM-Powered Search Systems on Diverse Information Seeking [49.02867094432589]
  Large language models (LLMs) powered conversational search systems have already been used by hundreds of millions of people. We investigate whether and how LLMs with opinion biases that either reinforce or challenge the user's view change the effect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-08T18:14:33Z)
• Sociodemographic Prompting is Not Yet an Effective Approach for Simulating Subjective Judgments with LLMs [13.744746481528711]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used to simulate human responses across diverse contexts.<n>We evaluate nine popular LLMs on their ability to understand demographic differences in two subjective judgment tasks: politeness and offensiveness.<n>We find that in zero-shot settings, most models' predictions for both tasks align more closely with labels from White participants than those from Asian or Black participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:02:24Z)
• Sensitivity, Performance, Robustness: Deconstructing the Effect of Sociodemographic Prompting [64.80538055623842]
  sociodemographic prompting is a technique that steers the output of prompt-based models towards answers that humans with specific sociodemographic profiles would give. We show that sociodemographic information affects model predictions and can be beneficial for improving zero-shot learning in subjective NLP tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-13T15:42:06Z)

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.