arXiv:2606. 09843v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) give stable answers to personality questionnaires, yet these self-reports fail to predict how the models behave.
By Juan Manuel Contreras
arXiv:2607. 07916v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models exhibit recurring behavioural patterns -- personas -- that shape generalisation and safety, but we lack reliable tools for decomposing, measuring, and controlling them.
By Luke Baines, Anton Gonzalvez Hawthorne, Mariia Koroliuk, Irakli Shalibashvili, Cl\'ement Dumas, Konstantinos Voudouris, David Demitri Africa
arXiv:2606. 09843v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) produce stable self-reports on personality inventories, but these self-reports do not predict observed behavior.
By Juan Manuel Contreras
arXiv:2609.22090v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: An LLM producing the response pattern associated with a human psychological effect is not the same claim as the LLM possessing that bias. We present Ps...
By Joy Bose
arXiv:2608. 14606v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic survey respondents, but existing evaluations ask whether answers look plausible at the individual level.
By Mantas Lukauskas, Viktorija \v{S}arkauskait\.e
arXiv:2608. 05224v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models fine-tuned on human behavioural data have emerged as general-purpose cognitive proxies, but the scale this requires, and whether these models process task structure or exploit statistical shortcuts, remain open questions.
By Nick Oh, Fernand Gobet
arXiv:2507. 04491v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being integrated into psychological and behavioral research as research tools, evaluation targets, human simulators, and cognitive models.
By Zhicheng Lin
arXiv:2609.22934v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate human decisions and communication, yet their behavioural regularities remain difficult to characteriz...
By Yu Sha, Junqi Tao, Dixin Zhou, Yansheng Tu, Mingyang Chen, Xiang Fan, Yang Liu, Mengquan Yang, Jie Lin, Jiahui Fu, Hua Zheng, Benwei Zhang, Zhou Kai
arXiv:2608. 10703v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act in interactive settings where their behavioral styles affect user experience, safety, and downstream decision making.
By Haoze Liu, Run Liu, Haiying Xu, Jiahui Han, Siyuan Fang, Siyu Yan, Huiqi Deng, Guanchu Wang, Na Zou
The paper investigates whether human psychometric questionnaires can reliably characterize large language models (LLMs) in everyday interactions. By comparing eight open‑source LLMs’ value and personality profiles from Likert self‑reports (PVQ‑40/21 and BFI‑44/10) with generation probabilities on value‑laden user queries, the authors find substantial divergence between the two methods. The study shows that questionnaire items contain explicit lexical cues that lead models to respond in socially desirable ways, whereas realistic user queries lack such cues, and demographic persona prompts shift questionnaire responses but not generation outputs, indicating that questionnaire scores overestimate LLMs’ true behavioral tendencies.
By Woojung Song, Dongmin Choi, Yoonah Park, Jongwook Han, Eun-Ju Lee, Yohan Jo
arXiv:2606. 12730v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Anticipating LLM behavioral tendencies from low-cost psychometric probes is critical for safe deployment, but only if self-reports (SR) reliably predict behavior.
By Rafal Kocielnik, Pengrui Han, Peiyang Song, Myrl G. Marmarelis, Ramit Debnath, Dean Mobbs, Anima Anandkumar, R. Michael Alvarez
The study investigates how different prompt components affect language model responses in psychometric tests. By crossing five distinct baseline personas with five variants of each prompt element—persona wording, task instruction, item wording, and option symbol—the authors measure response shifts using the 1‑Wasserstein distance. Their analysis of 13 small open‑weight language models on the Big Five Inventory and Short Dark Triad reveals that task instruction and option symbol changes often cause more variation than paraphrasing the persona or item, with prompt artifacts explaining over 50% of the variation for many items.
By Nils Schwager, Christoph Hau, Simon M\"unker, Achim Rettinger