The study identifies prompt anchoring as a source of methodological variation in LLM-assisted content analysis, indicating that anchoring strategies should be explicitly specified, justified, and reported as part of the study methodology.
Abstract
This study examines how different prompt anchoring strategies influence the conceptual representation of LLM-generated keywords and compares those effects with the effects of model selection. A controlled exploratory experiment evaluated four prompt conditions—No Examples, Brief Keywords, Detailed Explanations, and Author-Based Examples—across T. D. Wilson’s four information behavior dimensions using 1068 abstracts. Four LLMs (GPT-4o-mini, Claude-3-haiku, Gemini-2.0-flash-lite, and DeepSeek V3) were evaluated under all prompt conditions, yielding 17,036 valid observations. Results indicate that model identity accounts for substantially more variance in keyword generation (η2 = 0.309) than prompt condition (η2 = 0.069), although these estimates should be interpreted with caution given the repeated-measures design and assumption violations. Prompt anchoring, however, consistently reconfigured the conceptual distribution of outputs across all models, indicating that it influences conceptual representation even when model effects are larger. Author-Based Examples substantially increased representation of the typically underrepresented Information Sharing dimension, whereas Detailed Explanations produced the highest overall generation rates and the broadest dimensional coverage. These findings further indicate that different anchoring strategies involve consistent trade-offs in dimensional coverage. The study thereby identifies prompt anchoring as a source of methodological variation in LLM-assisted content analysis, indicating that anchoring strategies should be explicitly specified, justified, and reported as part of the study methodology.
It is well established that large language models (LLMs) are sensitive to prompt framing, reflecting patterns in their training data or prior prompts. In this study, we investigate the extent to which LLMs reinforce users biases expressed in the prompts and examine the boundary between implicit framing effects and explicit prompt manipulation. Specifically, we evaluate how susceptible LLMs are to direct and suggestive prompts that encourage models to support or challenge particular positions. We evaluate six LLMs using 160 distinct prompts spanning ten topics across opinion-based and factual domains. The prompts systematically vary in prompting strategy, support versus challenge instructions, prompt polarity, users'expressed beliefs, and topic domain, spanning both opinion-based and factual questions. Our results show that LLMs systematically adapt their responses to align with prompt framing, even in factual contexts. This suggests that prompt framing can outweigh factual consistency in model responses. Overall, our findings delineate the extent and boundaries of LLM manipulability. Furthermore, the results imply that LLMs can reinforce subtle user biases and are susceptible to explicit prompt manipulation even in domains where responses should remain factually stable.
Mudar Adas, Polina Tsvilodub, Michael Franke et al.· 0 citations
Survey-style evaluations of large language models often treat a prompted response as a measure of a model's values or beliefs. This assumption is particularly fragile when responses are read as evidence of political values, social attitudes, or beliefs. We ask whether prompt robustness differs between objective questions with fixed answers and subjective questions that ask for opinions or values. We evaluate four instruction-tuned model families on three objective datasets (MMLU, ARC, and CulturalBench) and three subjective datasets (Political Compass Test, ValueBench, and World Values Survey). For each question/statement, we apply multiple types of prompt changes, such as variations in wording, framing, and format, and measure whether the model gives the same answer across variants. Using a binomial generalized estimating equation, we find significant effects of model, dataset, prompt category, and their interactions. The dataset type effect is also significant, and the interaction between dataset type and prompt category is large. These results show that prompt robustness depends on the question type, the prompt change, and the model.
Sadia Kamal, A. Patwary, Anthony Marchiafava et al.· 0 citations
Professional communication is increasingly mediated by LLMs - but do these models serve all users equally? We show that when prompts contain linguistic features more commonly used by women (hedges, tag questions, collective reference), they systematically elicit shorter, less sophisticated, and less formal responses across three document types and four models. These effects persist after controlling for prompt complexity and feature carry-over. Explicit gender cues like sign-off names are encoded in the same representational space as linguistic dialect - suggesting shared underlying mechanisms - yet linguistic register is far more influential, producing large, consistent effects where names produce none. Our results further reveal that post-hoc mitigation is challenging: because these patterns are culturally embedded and outside conscious control, users cannot easily avoid them through strategic self-presentation, and mechanistic analysis reveals that linguistic features are encoded in early transformer layers and entangled with other features. Our work calls for upstream consideration of the influences of linguistic variation to mitigate disparate impacts of LLM-mediated workplace communication.
We investigate how annotator demographic attributes, supplied as prompt cues, shape the alignment between large language model (LLM) predictions and human annotations across five tasks. Using five open-source LLMs, we systematically vary the number and composition of demographic components in the prompt, spanning every combination from single-attribute through full-attribute configurations. Our experiments reveal three principal findings. First, alignment consistently peaks with one to three high-signal attributes and degrades under the full attribute set, establishing a clear over-specification threshold. Second, the overall magnitude of demographic influence on human annotations does not predict which attributes improve LLM alignment; instead, both the learnability and the directional coherence of each attribute's annotation signal need to be considered jointly. Third, neuron probing reveals that specialized activation correlates with alignment gains only under coherent annotation signals, and that activation volume alone does not imply steerability. Together, these results demonstrate that demographic prompting is not a monolithic intervention: its utility is highly context-dependent, shaped by attribute signal quality, task characteristics, and model architecture.
M. Kamruzzaman, Shrabony Das, Gene Louis Kim· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly assess generated content, giving rise to the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm. These systems now score outputs, filter content, and gate iterative refinement in production pipelines, where each judgment is often assumed to be independent of earlier evaluations. We test this assumption using three prompt conditions: no metadata, revision framing, and anchored metadata containing revision, attempt, and prior-score fields. We show that prior scores, even when included only as context metadata, anchor judgments and systematically shift ratings toward their values. Across 192,000 attempted evaluations (185,271 successful), seven out of the eight evaluated models have 95% task-stratified bootstrap intervals below zero for the total anchored-metadata effect on 20 fixed texts. Cohen's $d$, a standardized measure of the difference between score distributions, reaches an absolute value of 0.71. Token-level analysis of selected model-task probes suggests a threshold-like response pattern: introducing anchored metadata produces a marked redistribution of output-score probabilities, while changing the anchor value within the tested below-threshold range produces comparatively little additional variation. On categorical industry data with human-labeled ground truth, anchored metadata blocks 48% of error corrections and flips 10.18% of correct judgments toward an assigned wrong label, demonstrating the bias extends beyond numerical scoring to categorical decisions. Neither Chain-of-Thought nor a metadata-disregard warning reduces the total effect, although the warning improves the paired accuracy effect relative to baseline in the industry experiment. Reliable LLM evaluation demands careful context engineering rather than an assumption of impartiality. Effective mitigation must be validated for the intended model and task or domain.
A. Kapetanović, Kemal Altwlkany, Andro Merćep et al.· 0 citations
Sampling methods for large language models select candidate tokens based on logit statistics, implicitly assuming that high log-its indicate desirable outputs. We identify the Logit Conflation Problem , where a to-ken’s logit aggregates prompt-independent factors, including linguistic fluency and parametric associations, with prompt-relevance. However, only prompt-relevance determines instruction-following quality. We propose SEAL-Sampling ( S ignal E xtraction for A ctive Re L evance) to isolate this component through attention-weighted attribution. Our framework defines prompt-relevance as the causal effect of prompt content on token logits and establishes attention patterns as an efficient proxy. Experiments on LLaMA-3 demonstrate significant improvements over top-nσ , with gains of 1.8% on AlpacaEval 2.0 and 2.2% on IFEval. Furthermore, attribution scores correlate weakly with raw logits, confirming the extraction of an orthogonal signal. The method is training-free and introduces minimal latency, adding less than 12ms overhead per token.
Pinlong Zhao, Huijun Tang, Pengfei Jiao et al.· Annual Meeting of the Associ...· 0 citations