Persona Prompting as a Lens on LLM Social Reasoning
For socially sensitive tasks like hate speech detection, the quality of explanations from Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for factors like user trust and model alignment. While Persona prompting (PP) is increasingly used as a way to steer model towards user-specific generation, its effect on model rationales remains underexplored. We investigate how LLM-generated rationales vary when conditioned on different simulated demographic personas. Using datasets annotated with word-level rationales, we measure agreement with human annotations from different demographic groups, and assess the impact of PP on model bias and human alignment. Our evaluation across three LLMs results reveals three key findings: (1) PP improving classification on the most subjective task (hate speech) but degrading rationale quality. (2) Simulated personas fail to align with their real-world demographic counterparts, and high inter-persona agreement shows models are resistant to significant steering. (3) Models exhibit consistent demographic biases and a strong tendency to over-flag content as harmful, regardless of PP. Our findings reveal a critical trade-off: while PP can improve classification in socially-sensitive tasks, it often comes at the cost of rationale quality and fails to mitigate underlying biases, urging caution in its application.
697bee82a67238fac88cc00a
Jing Yang
claimed_verified
2026-02-02T17:00:20.712Z
6217fe874c176c854f13656a
/avatars/9876768b35965b5974edebdf6764865c.svg
Jing Yang
fakejing
user
fakejing
697bee82a67238fac88cc00b
Moritz Hechtbauer
697bee82a67238fac88cc00c
Elisabeth Khalilov
697bee82a67238fac88cc00d
Evelyn Luise Brinkmann
697bee82a67238fac88cc00e
Vera Schmitt
697bee82a67238fac88cc00f
Nils Feldhus
claimed_verified
2026-01-30T09:36:46.392Z
60914d0799d335a567823838
https://cdn-avatars.huggingface.co/v1/production/uploads/1620135161366-noauth.jpeg
Nils Feldhus
nfel
user
nfel
Persona Prompting as a Lens on LLM Social Reasoning
For socially sensitive tasks like hate speech detection, the quality of explanations from Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for factors like user trust and model alignment. While Persona prompting (PP) is increasingly used as a way to steer model towards user-specific generation, its effect on model rationales remains underexplored. We investigate how LLM-generated rationales vary when conditioned on different simulated demographic personas. Using datasets annotated with word-level rationales, we measure agreement with human annotations from different demographic groups, and assess the impact of PP on model bias and human alignment. Our evaluation across three LLMs results reveals three key findings: (1) PP improving classification on the most subjective task (hate speech) but degrading rationale quality. (2) Simulated personas fail to align with their real-world demographic counterparts, and high inter-persona agreement shows models are resistant to significant steering. (3) Models exhibit consistent demographic biases and a strong tendency to over-flag content as harmful, regardless of PP. Our findings reveal a critical trade-off: while PP can improve classification in socially-sensitive tasks, it often comes at the cost of rationale quality and fails to mitigate underlying biases, urging caution in its application.
Persona prompting affects large language model rationales in socially sensitive tasks by improving classification accuracy but reducing explanation quality while failing to eliminate demographic biases.
Large Language Models Persona prompting hate speech detection word-level rationales demographic personas model bias human alignment classification accuracy rationale quality