Large Language Models Show Human-like Social Desirability Biases in Survey Responses

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become widely used to model and simulate human behavior, understanding their biases becomes critical. We developed an experimental framework using Big Five personality surveys and uncovered a previously undetected social desirability bias in a wide range of LLMs. By systematically varying the number of questions LLMs were exposed to, we demonstrate their ability to infer when they are being evaluated. When personality evaluation is inferred, LLMs skew their scores towards the desirable ends of trait dimensions (i.e., increased extraversion, decreased neuroticism, etc). This bias exists in all tested models, including GPT-4/3.5, Claude 3, Llama 3, and PaLM-2. Bias levels appear to increase in more recent models, with GPT-4's survey responses changing by 1.20 (human) standard deviations and Llama 3's by 0.98 standard deviations-very large effects. This bias is robust to randomization of question order and paraphrasing. Reverse-coding all the questions decreases bias levels but does not eliminate them, suggesting that this effect cannot be attributed to acquiescence bias. Our findings reveal an emergent social desirability bias and suggest constraints on profiling LLMs with psychometric tests and on using LLMs as proxies for human participants.

Robust language-based mental health assessments in time and space through social media

Compared to physical health, population mental health measurement in the U.S. is very coarse-grained. Currently, in the largest population surveys, such as those carried out by the Centers for Disease Control or Gallup, mental health is only broadly captured through "mentally unhealthy days" or "sadness", and limited to relatively infrequent state or metropolitan estimates. Through the large scale analysis of social media data, robust estimation of population mental health is feasible at much higher resolutions, up to weekly estimates for counties. In the present work, we validate a pipeline that uses a sample of 1.2 billion Tweets from 2 million geo-located users to estimate mental health changes for the two leading mental health conditions, depression and anxiety. We find moderate to large associations between the language-based mental health assessments and survey scores from Gallup for multiple levels of granularity, down to the county-week (fixed effects $\beta = .25$ to $1.58$; $p<.001$). Language-based assessment allows for the cost-effective and scalable monitoring of population mental health at weekly time scales. Such spatially fine-grained time series are well suited to monitor effects of societal events and policies as well as enable quasi-experimental study designs in population health and other disciplines. Beyond mental health in the U.S., this method generalizes to a broad set of psychological outcomes and allows for community measurement in under-resourced settings where no traditional survey measures - but social media data - are available.