Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study reveals that the psychological profiles assigned to large language models (LLMs) are primarily artifacts of the measurement instruments used rather than true reflections of the models' traits. By applying a psychometric framework to analyze responses from 56 instruction-tuned LLMs and human reference samples, the authors find that 81-90% of the variance in model responses is attributable to directional response bias rather than actual psychological traits. The research highlights that the reliability of psychological assessments for LLMs is largely dependent on the orthogonality of the items used, suggesting a need for tailored evaluation methods for these models.
The psychological profiles of LLMs are largely illusions created by measurement bias, not genuine traits.
Psychological instruments designed for humans are increasingly used to assign large language models (LLMs) stable psychological profiles that affect their usability, safety assessment, and use as proxies for human participants in research. Using a formal psychometric framework, we show that these profiles are largely a measurement artifact. Administering a battery of personality and risk-preference instruments spanning self-reports and behavioral tasks to 56 instruction-tuned LLMs alongside large human reference samples, we report four findings. First, differences between models are driven not by the traits an instrument targets but by a directional response bias, a tendency to respond toward one end of the scale, or one labeled option, regardless of item content; a variance decomposition attributes 81-90% of between-model variation to this bias, against 9-16% in humans. Second, the bias declines with model capability but is not eliminated by it. Third, because bias rather than trait drives responding, an instrument's apparent reliability is almost entirely predicted by its response orthogonality, a term we coin for the proportion of items for which trait and bias point in opposite directions. Fourth, the profile a model appears to have shifts with the items used and can be manufactured through item selection. These results demonstrate that the apparent psychological profiles of LLMs are artifacts of the instrument used to measure them, not properties of the models themselves. As instruments borrowed from human psychology are rarely fully orthogonal and may inherently lack validity for LLMs, we call for dedicated assessments centered on response orthogonality.
