IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v32y2024i4p401-416_2.html

Synthetic Replacements for Human Survey Data? The Perils of Large Language Models

Author

Listed:
  • Bisbee, James
  • Clinton, Joshua D.
  • Dorff, Cassy
  • Kenkel, Brenton
  • Larson, Jennifer M.

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) offer new research possibilities for social scientists, but their potential as “synthetic data” is still largely unknown. In this paper, we investigate how accurately the popular LLM ChatGPT can recover public opinion, prompting the LLM to adopt different “personas” and then provide feeling thermometer scores for 11 sociopolitical groups. The average scores generated by ChatGPT correspond closely to the averages in our baseline survey, the 2016–2020 American National Election Study (ANES). Nevertheless, sampling by ChatGPT is not reliable for statistical inference: there is less variation in responses than in the real surveys, and regression coefficients often differ significantly from equivalent estimates obtained using ANES data. We also document how the distribution of synthetic responses varies with minor changes in prompt wording, and we show how the same prompt yields significantly different results over a 3-month period. Altogether, our findings raise serious concerns about the quality, reliability, and reproducibility of synthetic survey data generated by LLMs.

Suggested Citation

  • Bisbee, James & Clinton, Joshua D. & Dorff, Cassy & Kenkel, Brenton & Larson, Jennifer M., 2024. "Synthetic Replacements for Human Survey Data? The Perils of Large Language Models," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 401-416, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:32:y:2024:i:4:p:401-416_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198724000056/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:32:y:2024:i:4:p:401-416_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.