Investigating the Utility of LLM-Based “Silicon Samples” in Political Science Conjoint Experiments

Clicks: 8
ID: 337680
2026
Free PDF
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.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #52 of 52 articles by views in public opinion quarterly

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create 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
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract This research note is the first study to explore the viability of using LLM-generated respondents in forced-choice conjoint experiments. I generate naive “silicon samples” using three models, GPT 4o-Mini, Llama 3.2, and Magistral-small-2506, benchmarked to a large sample of live conjoint respondents, allowing for direct comparisons between human and silicon choices. The resulting analyses suggest that naively generated silicon samples are insufficient to simulate human decision-making in conjoint tasks; these results also suggest that there are systemic differences in the way demographic covariates shape LLM and human choices in experimental contexts. In total, this analysis makes two important contributions: it establishes a descriptive baseline understanding of LLM-generated respondent performance in conjoint experiments and suggests that naive silicon samples cannot accurately infer human choices using demographic traits in experimental decision making contexts. Finally, the implications of these results imply that LLMs consider covariates differently than live respondents do in micro-level decision making contexts.
Reference Key
openalex_W7224259526 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Alice Malmberg
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal public opinion quarterly
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/poq/nfag069
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfag069
Keywords Keywords not found

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.