Which Demographics do LLMs Default to During Annotation?
Johannes Schäfer, Aidan Combs, Christopher Bagdon, Jiahui Li, Nadine Probol, Lynn Greschner, Sean Papay, Yarik Menchaca Resendiz, Aswathy Velutharambath, Amelie Wührl, Sabine Weber, Roman Klinger
Abstract
Demographics and cultural background of annotators influence the labels they assign in text annotation -- for instance, an elderly woman might find it offensive to read a message addressed to a"bro", but a male teenager might find it appropriate. It is therefore important to acknowledge label variations to not under-represent members of a society. Two research directions developed out of this observation in the context of using large language models (LLM) for data annotations, namely (1) studying biases and inherent knowledge of LLMs and (2) injecting diversity in the output by manipulating the prompt with demographic information. We combine these two strands of research and ask the question to which demographics an LLM resorts to when no demographics is given. To answer this question, we evaluate which attributes of human annotators LLMs inherently mimic. Furthermore, we compare non-demographic conditioned prompts and placebo-conditioned prompts (e.g.,"you are an annotator who lives in house number 5") to demographics-conditioned prompts ("You are a 45 year old man and an expert on politeness annotation. How do you rate instance"). We study these questions for politeness and offensiveness annotations on the POPQUORN data set, a corpus created in a controlled manner to investigate human label variations based on demographics which has not been used for LLM-based analyses so far. We observe notable influences related to gender, race, and age in demographic prompting, which contrasts with previous studies that found no such effects.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext c90a89e1-880b-422d-93d5-5d1cf096a928Builds on16
- Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?Shibani Santurkar, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Cinoo Lee et al.ICML 2023 · 764 citations
- Transformers Learn In-Context by Gradient DescentJohannes von Oswald, Eyvind Niklasson, Ettore Randazzo, João Sacramento et al.ICML 2023 · 729 citations
- Prompt for Extraction? PAIE: Prompting Argument Interaction for Event Argument ExtractionYubo Ma, Zehao Wang, Yixin Cao, Mukai Li et al.ACL 2022 · 182 citations
- From Pretraining Data to Language Models to Downstream Tasks: Tracking the Trails of Political Biases Leading to Unfair NLP ModelsShangbin Feng, Chan Young Park, Yuhan Liu, Yulia TsvetkovACL 2023 · 117 citations
- Prompting Is Programming: A Query Language for Large Language ModelsLuca Beurer-Kellner, Marc Fischer, Martin T. VechevPLDI 2023 · 114 citations
Related papers
- Beyond Demographics: Fine-tuning Large Language Models to Predict Individuals' Subjective Text PerceptionsMatthias Orlikowski, Jiaxin Pei, Paul Röttger, Philipp Cimiano et al.ACL 2025 · 34 citations
- Quantifying the Persona Effect in LLM SimulationsTiancheng Hu, Nigel CollierACL 2024 · 22 citations
- Can Third Parties Read Our Emotions?Jiayi Li, Yingfan Zhou, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Halima Binte Islam et al.ACL 2025 · 5 citations
- Cultural Conditioning or Placebo? On the Effectiveness of Socio-Demographic PromptingSagnik Mukherjee, Muhammad Farid Adilazuarda, Sunayana Sitaram, Kalika Bali et al.EMNLP 2024 · 3 citations
- Hate Personified: Investigating the role of LLMs in content moderationSarah Masud, Sahajpreet Singh, Viktor Hangya, Alexander Fraser et al.EMNLP 2024 · 6 citations
