Confirming Our Biases? Evaluating the Capabilities, Risks, and Societal Impact of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06977v1
• Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2026 08:54:27 GMT
• Title: Confirming Our Biases? Evaluating the Capabilities, Risks, and Societal Impact of Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: This study investigates the extent to which large language models reinforce users biases expressed in the prompts.<n>We evaluate how susceptible LLMs are to direct and suggestive prompts that encourage models to support or challenge particular positions.
• Score: 5.5881263948644175
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: It is well established that large language models (LLMs) are sensitive to prompt framing, reflecting patterns in their training data or prior prompts. In this study, we investigate the extent to which LLMs reinforce users biases expressed in the prompts and examine the boundary between implicit framing effects and explicit prompt manipulation. Specifically, we evaluate how susceptible LLMs are to direct and suggestive prompts that encourage models to support or challenge particular positions. We evaluate six LLMs using 160 distinct prompts spanning ten topics across opinion-based and factual domains. The prompts systematically vary in prompting strategy, support versus challenge instructions, prompt polarity, users' expressed beliefs, and topic domain, spanning both opinion-based and factual questions. Our results show that LLMs systematically adapt their responses to align with prompt framing, even in factual contexts. This suggests that prompt framing can outweigh factual consistency in model responses. Overall, our findings delineate the extent and boundaries of LLM manipulability. Furthermore, the results imply that LLMs can reinforce subtle user biases and are susceptible to explicit prompt manipulation even in domains where responses should remain factually stable.

Related papers

• Not What, But How: A Framework for Auditing LLM Responses across Positioning, Generalization, Anthromorphism, and Maxims [54.31707479192195]
  Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly used to answer subjective, information-seeking questions.<n>Existing evaluations for subjective cultural queries largely focus on factual correctness, ignoring how the response is framed.<n>We introduce FRANZ, an automated FRAmework for respoNse characteriZation to conduct communicative audit of LLM responses along four dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T17:01:31Z)
• An Analysis of Large Language Models for Simulating User Responses in Surveys [8.614942349812429]
  Using Large Language Models to simulate user opinions has received growing attention.<n>LLMs are known to exhibit biases toward dominant viewpoints, raising concerns about their ability to represent users from diverse demographic and cultural backgrounds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-07T15:03:09Z)
• Flaw or Artifact? Rethinking Prompt Sensitivity in Evaluating LLMs [34.51801559719707]
  High prompt sensitivity has been widely accepted as a core limitation of large language models.<n>This work asks: Is the widely reported high prompt sensitivity truly an inherent weakness of LLMs, or is it largely an artifact of evaluation processes?<n>We find that much of the prompt sensitivity stems from evaluation methods, including log-likelihood scoring and rigid answer matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-01T21:38:28Z)
• Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts [79.1081247754018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks.<n>We propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions(CSQ) to quantify the likelihood of deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T14:46:35Z)
• Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and Inconsistencies [66.30619782227173]
  Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing.<n>We identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance.<n>We find that explanations increase reliance on both correct and incorrect responses.<n>We observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T16:35:41Z)
• Do LLMs Understand Ambiguity in Text? A Case Study in Open-world Question Answering [15.342415325821063]
  Ambiguity in natural language poses significant challenges to Large Language Models (LLMs) used for open-domain question answering. We compare off-the-shelf and few-shot LLM performance, focusing on measuring the impact of explicit disambiguation strategies. We demonstrate how simple, training-free, token-level disambiguation methods may be effectively used to improve LLM performance for ambiguous question answering tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-19T10:27:26Z)
• Self-Instructed Derived Prompt Generation Meets In-Context Learning: Unlocking New Potential of Black-Box LLMs [30.333277284839053]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown success in generating high-quality responses. Existing methods to enhance response quality often involve a prompt refinement model. We introduce a self-instructed in-context learning framework that empowers LLMs to deliver more effective responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-03T02:42:39Z)
• Understanding the Relationship between Prompts and Response Uncertainty in Large Language Models [55.332004960574004]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in decision-making, but their reliability, especially in critical tasks like healthcare, is not well-established.<n>This paper investigates how the uncertainty of responses generated by LLMs relates to the information provided in the input prompt.<n>We propose a prompt-response concept model that explains how LLMs generate responses and helps understand the relationship between prompts and response uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T11:19:58Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• Intuitive or Dependent? Investigating LLMs' Behavior Style to Conflicting Prompts [9.399159332152013]
  This study investigates the behaviors of Large Language Models (LLMs) when faced with conflicting prompts versus their internal memory. This will help to understand LLMs' decision mechanism and also benefit real-world applications, such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T17:26:03Z)
• Check Your Facts and Try Again: Improving Large Language Models with External Knowledge and Automated Feedback [127.75419038610455]
  Large language models (LLMs) are able to generate human-like, fluent responses for many downstream tasks. This paper proposes a LLM-Augmenter system, which augments a black-box LLM with a set of plug-and-play modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-24T18:48:43Z)

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.