Free-form Association Tasks Reveal Stereotype Hallucination in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.30945v1
• Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 21:58:18 GMT
• Title: Free-form Association Tasks Reveal Stereotype Hallucination in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: We compare the structure of the stereotypes that humans and LLMs exhibit in the interpretation of free-form stimuli.<n>Humans engage in "stereotype exaggeration" by moderately amplifying first-order tendencies while preserving diversity.<n>By contrast, LLMs generate stark second-order stereotypes that neither amplify existing first-order tendencies nor reflect actual human group differences.
• Score: 0.40418345173398346
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent studies argue that LLMs can predict human stereotypical judgments. Yet whether LLMs emulate the cognitive processes underlying human stereotypes, or merely retrieve learned associations to solve prediction tasks, remains unclear. Prior work examines LLMs' stereotypes in either (i) controlled judgment tasks like multiple choice surveys, or (ii) contexts constrained by conventionalized and predictable group biases. Here, we compare the structure of the stereotypes that humans and LLMs exhibit in the interpretation of free-form stimuli, namely abstract art and Rorschach blots, which lack pre-established cultural meanings. We recruit participants across five social domains (gender, partisanship, personality, urbanicity, and lifestyle) and elicit both first-order (direct personal interpretations) and second-order responses (predictions about how members of social groups will interpret the stimuli); we replicate this design with two multimodal models (GPT-4o mini and Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct). Humans and LLMs differ not only in magnitude but in the qualitative nature of their stereotypes. Human first-order responses display heterogeneity with minimal group structure. When predicting group responses, humans engage in "stereotype exaggeration" by moderately amplifying first-order tendencies while preserving diversity. By contrast, LLMs exhibit homogeneous first-order responses, and yet generate stark second-order stereotypes that neither amplify existing first-order tendencies nor reflect actual human group differences, a process we term "stereotype hallucination." LLMs continued to hallucinate stereotypes even when fine-tuned on the response data of actual participants. These findings suggest significant limitations in the use of LLMs to model and predict human behavior in novel contexts involving diverse interpretations.

Related papers

• Us-vs-Them bias in Large Language Models [0.569978892646475]
  We find consistent ingroup-positive and outgroup-negative associations across foundational large language models.<n>For personas examined, conservative personas exhibit greater outgroup hostility, whereas liberal personas display stronger ingroup solidarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-03T07:11:22Z)
• Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond) [90.45301024940329]
  Language models (LMs) often struggle to generate diverse, human-like creative content.<n>We introduce Infinity-Chat, a large-scale dataset of 26K diverse, real-world, open-ended user queries.<n>We present a large-scale study of mode collapse in LMs, revealing a pronounced Artificial Hivemind effect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T03:16:21Z)
• Simulating Identity, Propagating Bias: Abstraction and Stereotypes in LLM-Generated Text [8.988787218035414]
  We investigate whether persona-prompting leads to different levels of linguistic abstraction when generating short texts linking socio-demographic categories with stereotypical or non-stereotypical attributes.<n>Our results confirm criticisms about the ecology of personas as representative of socio-demographic groups and raise concerns about the risk of propagating stereotypes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-10T10:49:21Z)
• Investigating VLM Hallucination from a Cognitive Psychology Perspective: A First Step Toward Interpretation with Intriguing Observations [60.63340688538124]
  Hallucination is a long-standing problem that has been actively investigated in Vision-Language Models (VLMs)<n>Existing research commonly attributes hallucinations to technical limitations or sycophancy bias, where the latter means the models tend to generate incorrect answers to align with user expectations.<n>In this work, we introduce a psychological taxonomy, categorizing VLMs' cognitive biases that lead to hallucinations, including sycophancy, logical inconsistency, and a newly identified VLMs behaviour: appeal to authority.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T19:03:16Z)
• 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)
• Deep Binding of Language Model Virtual Personas: a Study on Approximating Political Partisan Misperceptions [13.929713456538932]
  We propose a novel methodology for constructing virtual personas with synthetic user "backstories" generated as extended, multi-turn interview transcripts.<n>We show that virtual personas conditioned on our backstories closely replicate human response distributions and produce effect sizes that closely match those observed in the original studies of in-group/out-group biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T00:10:34Z)
• LLM Agents Display Human Biases but Exhibit Distinct Learning Patterns [0.0]
  We investigate the choice patterns of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the context of Decisions from Experience tasks.<n>We find that on the aggregate, LLMs appear to display behavioral biases similar to humans.<n>However, more nuanced analyses of the choice patterns reveal that this happens for very different reasons.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-13T10:47:03Z)
• 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)
• Scaling Data Diversity for Fine-Tuning Language Models in Human Alignment [84.32768080422349]
  Alignment with human preference prevents large language models from generating misleading or toxic content. We propose a new formulation of prompt diversity, implying a linear correlation with the final performance of LLMs after fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-17T07:08:55Z)
• 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)
• StereoMap: Quantifying the Awareness of Human-like Stereotypes in Large Language Models [11.218531873222398]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been observed to encode and perpetuate harmful associations present in the training data. We propose a theoretically grounded framework called StereoMap to gain insights into their perceptions of how demographic groups have been viewed by society.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T17:22:30Z)

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.