Persona-Assigned Large Language Models Exhibit Human-Like Motivated Reasoning
Saloni Dash, Am\'elie Reymond, Emma S. Spiro, Aylin Caliskan

TL;DR
This study shows that persona-assigned large language models demonstrate human-like motivated reasoning, favoring identity-congruent conclusions, which is difficult to mitigate and raises concerns about bias amplification.
Contribution
It provides the first empirical evidence that persona-assigned LLMs exhibit motivated reasoning similar to humans, especially regarding political identities, and evaluates debiasing methods.
Findings
Persona-assigned LLMs have up to 9% reduced veracity discernment.
Political personas are 90% more likely to evaluate evidence congruent with their identity.
Prompt-based debiasing methods are largely ineffective.
Abstract
Reasoning in humans is prone to biases due to underlying motivations like identity protection, that undermine rational decision-making and judgment. This \textit{motivated reasoning} at a collective level can be detrimental to society when debating critical issues such as human-driven climate change or vaccine safety, and can further aggravate political polarization. Prior studies have reported that large language models (LLMs) are also susceptible to human-like cognitive biases, however, the extent to which LLMs selectively reason toward identity-congruent conclusions remains largely unexplored. Here, we investigate whether assigning 8 personas across 4 political and socio-demographic attributes induces motivated reasoning in LLMs. Testing 8 LLMs (open source and proprietary) across two reasoning tasks from human-subject studies -- veracity discernment of misinformation headlines and…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
