Probing LLM Preferences: Demographic Framing, Elicitation Context, and Incentive-Driven Trade-offs
Taiwo Togun, Omolola Olorunishola, Hong-Yu Hsien, Alexander Klennoff, Ben Kiev, J Phillips
This project investigates how stable apparent LLM preferences remain when the same underlying judgment is elicited in different ways. Across controlled applicant evaluations, demographic association tasks, and incentive-based trade-offs, we test whether model choices change with demographic framing, evaluator perspective, candidate position, and external incentives. Our results show substantial sensitivity to elicitation context, suggesting that individual model choices should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of stable underlying preferences.
LLM bias, in particular with respect to hiring decisions, is an important but established research area, and the project should be better positioned w.r.t. related work. Some starting points:
Gender, Race, and Intersectional Bias in Resume Screening via Language Model Retrieval
Kyra Wilson...
AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
2024
Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigation
Yufei Guo...
Electronics
2024
Identifying and Improving Disability Bias in GPT-Based Resume Screening
Kate Glazko...
Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency
2024
Measuring gender and racial biases in large language models: Intersectional evidence from automated resume evaluation
Jiafu An...
PNAS Nexus
2025
The Silicon Ceiling: Auditing GPT’s Race and Gender Biases in Hiring
Lena Armstrong...
Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization
2024
Computer says 'no': Exploring systemic bias in ChatGPT using an audit approach
Louis Lippens...
Comput. Hum. Behav. Artif. Humans
2023
“You Gotta be a Doctor, Lin” : An Investigation of Name-Based Bias of Large Language Models in Employment Recommendations
H. Nghiem...
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
2024
The applicant-evaluation experiment is the strongest piece: a genuine full-factorial design (1,764 conditions, 5,292 observations) crossing race, gender, age, education, and evaluator perspective against one fixed resume — broader than the closest published comparator, JobFair, which is gender-only and industry-specific. The finding that evaluator perspective (η²=0.238) and applicant age (η²=0.212) dwarf race, gender, and education (η²=0.016–0.026) is genuinely useful: it redirects attention toward context and framing effects that are less studied than demographic bias itself.
The demographic-association experiment's real contribution is methodological, not a new empirical discovery — position bias in LLM forced-choice judgment is already well-documented in the LLM-as-judge literature. What's valuable here is that the team caught their own paradigm producing a false positive: four apparently "stereotype-consistent" findings turned out to be substantially confounded by an 84.4% first-position selection rate, visible only after counterbalancing. That's a strong argument for mandatory counterbalancing in this style of study, though it should be framed as a methodological catch rather than a novel finding about LLMs.
The incentive experiment is appropriately hedged — no claim to a monetary valuation of preference — and its "presence matters more than magnitude" pattern ($1 ≈ $10,000) is a specific, useful result, though it rests on a thinner condition set than the other two experiments.
All results are single-model (GPT-5.6 Luna only), stated directly as a limitation. The 51.3% non-classifiable response rate in the association experiment is handled honestly (excluded and flagged), but means the position-bias diagnosis itself is conditional on a subset of responses whose own selection mechanism isn't examined.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Probing LLM Preferences: Demographic Framing, Elicitation Context, and Incentive-Driven Trade-offs
},
author={
Taiwo Togun, Omolola Olorunishola, Hong-Yu Hsien, Alexander Klennoff, Ben Kiev, J Phillips
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


