Large language models can infer psychological dispositions of social media users.
Clicks: 141
ID: 279323
2024
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Star Article
30.0
/100
141 views
37 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
StarRanked #1 of 110 articles by views in PNAS nexus
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate increasingly human-like abilities across a wide variety of tasks. In this paper, we investigate whether LLMs like ChatGPT can accurately infer the psychological dispositions of social media users and whether their ability to do so varies across socio-demographic groups. Specifically, we test whether GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can derive the Big Five personality traits from users' Facebook status updates in a zero-shot learning scenario. Our results show an average correlation of ( ) between LLM-inferred and self-reported trait scores-a level of accuracy that is similar to that of supervised machine learning models specifically trained to infer personality. Our findings also highlight heterogeneity in the accuracy of personality inferences across different age groups and gender categories: predictions were found to be more accurate for women and younger individuals on several traits, suggesting a potential bias stemming from the underlying training data or differences in online self-expression. The ability of LLMs to infer psychological dispositions from user-generated text has the potential to democratize access to cheap and scalable psychometric assessments for both researchers and practitioners. On the one hand, this democratization might facilitate large-scale research of high ecological validity and spark innovation in personalized services. On the other hand, it also raises ethical concerns regarding user privacy and self-determination, highlighting the need for stringent ethical frameworks and regulation.
| Reference Key |
peters2024largepnas
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Peters, Heinrich;Matz, Sandra C; |
| Journal | PNAS nexus |
| Year | 2024 |
| DOI |
10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae231
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.