Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

What does ChatGPT return about human values? Exploring value bias in ChatGPT using a descriptive value theory

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2304.03612 v1 pith:TXRFW7M3 submitted 2023-04-07 cs.CL cs.CYcs.HC

classification cs.CLcs.CYcs.HC
keywords valuechatgptpossiblevaluescontentgeneratedhumantext
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

There has been concern about ideological basis and possible discrimination in text generated by Large Language Models (LLMs). We test possible value biases in ChatGPT using a psychological value theory. We designed a simple experiment in which we used a number of different probes derived from the Schwartz basic value theory (items from the revised Portrait Value Questionnaire, the value type definitions, value names). We prompted ChatGPT via the OpenAI API repeatedly to generate text and then analyzed the generated corpus for value content with a theory-driven value dictionary using a bag of words approach. Overall, we found little evidence of explicit value bias. The results showed sufficient construct and discriminant validity for the generated text in line with the theoretical predictions of the psychological model, which suggests that the value content was carried through into the outputs with high fidelity. We saw some merging of socially oriented values, which may suggest that these values are less clearly differentiated at a linguistic level or alternatively, this mixing may reflect underlying universal human motivations. We outline some possible applications of our findings for both applications of ChatGPT for corporate usage and policy making as well as future research avenues. We also highlight possible implications of this relatively high-fidelity replication of motivational content using a linguistic model for the theorizing about human values.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Human Psychometric Questionnaires Mischaracterize LLM Behavior

    cs.CL 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Standard psychometric questionnaires like the Big Five and PVQ produce different and more consistent results than ecologically valid questions drawn from real user conversations, suggesting the former may mischaracter...

  2. Normative Evaluation of Large Language Models with Everyday Moral Dilemmas

    cs.AI 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Seven LLMs give different moral verdicts on AITA dilemmas, differ from Redditors, and only in an ensemble approximate human consensus.

Pith tools