# Do LLMs have Consistent Values?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12878 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12878/

## Key facts

- Cited by 14 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 27 of its 66 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Jul 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 27 of 27)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.13586/) (2021)
- [Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.06899/) (2022)
- [Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.10264/) (2022)
- [Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.16388/) (2023)
- [Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.14576/) (2022)
- [Toxicity in ChatGPT: Analyzing Persona-assigned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05335/) (2023)
- [Supervised Contrastive Learning for Pre-trained Language Model Fine-tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.01403/) (2020)
- [Evaluating the Moral Beliefs Encoded in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.14324/) (2023)
- [Marked Personas: Using Natural Language Prompts to Measure Stereotypes in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18189/) (2023)
- [Bias Runs Deep: Implicit Reasoning Biases in Persona-Assigned LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04892/) (2023)
- [InCharacter: Evaluating Personality Fidelity in Role-Playing Agents through Psychological Interviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17976/) (2023)
- [Personality Traits in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.00184/) (2023)
- [In-Context Impersonation Reveals Large Language Models' Strengths and Biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14930/) (2023)
- [Thinking Fast and Slow in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.05206/) (2022)
- [Theory of Mind for Multi-Agent Collaboration via Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10701/) (2023)
- [Who is GPT-3? An Exploration of Personality, Values and Demographics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.14338/) (2022)
- [Putting GPT-3's Creativity to the (Alternative Uses) Test](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.08932/) (2022)
- [WorldValuesBench: A Large-Scale Benchmark Dataset for Multi-Cultural Value Awareness of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.16308/) (2024)
- [When "A Helpful Assistant" Is Not Really Helpful: Personas in System Prompts Do Not Improve Performances of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.10054/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models as Superpositions of Cultural Perspectives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07870/) (2023)
- [What does ChatGPT return about human values? Exploring value bias in ChatGPT using a descriptive value theory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03612/) (2023)
- [ValueBench: Towards Comprehensively Evaluating Value Orientations and Understanding of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04214/) (2024)
- [The Potential and Challenges of Evaluating Attitudes, Opinions, and Values in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11096/) (2024)
- [Towards Socially Intelligent Agents with Mental State Transition and Human Utility](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.07011/) (2021)
- [Stick to your Role! Stability of Personal Values Expressed in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14846/) (2024)
- [From Values to Opinions: Predicting Human Behaviors and Stances Using Value-Injected Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17857/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Utility Engineering: Analyzing and Controlling Emergent Value Systems in AIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08640/) (2025)
- [Will AI Tell Lies to Save Sick Children? Litmus-Testing AI Values Prioritization with AIRiskDilemmas](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.14633/) (2025)
- [FIRE-Bench: Evaluating AI Agents on the Rediscovery of Scientific Insights](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02905/) (2026)
- [Knowing But Not Doing: Convergent Morality and Divergent Action in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.07972/) (2026)
- [Generative Psycho-Lexical Approach for Constructing Value Systems in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.02444/) (2025)
- [Human Values in a Single Sentence: Moral Presence, Hierarchies, and Transformer Ensembles on the Schwartz Continuum](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.14172/) (2026)
- [Do Schwartz Higher-Order Values Help Sentence-Level Human Value Detection? A Study of Hierarchical Gating and Calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.00913/) (2026)
- [Measuring Opinion Bias and Sycophancy via LLM-based Persuasion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.21564/) (2026)
- [Are Dilemmas and Conflicts in LLM Alignment Solvable? A View from Priority Graph](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.15527/) (2026)
- [How AI Systems Think About Education: Analyzing Latent Preference Patterns in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.21006/) (2026)
- [Superficial Beliefs in LLM Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.11016/) (2026)
- [Occupational Prompting Reveals Cultural Bias in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.12443/) (2026)
- [PrimeScientist: Strategic Allocation of Research Effort in Autonomous Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.17846/) (2026)
- [Benchmarking Psychological Dynamics in Generative Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.04246/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLM) technology is constantly improving towards human-like dialogue. Values are a basic driving force underlying human behavior, but little research has been done to study the values exhibited in text generated by LLMs. Here we study this question by turning to the rich literature on value structure in psychology. We ask whether LLMs exhibit the same value structure that has been demonstrated in humans, including the ranking of values, and correlation between values. We show that the results of this analysis depend on how the LLM is prompted, and that under a particular prompting strategy (referred to as "Value Anchoring") the agreement with human data is quite compelling. Our results serve both to improve our understanding of values in LLMs, as well as introduce novel methods for assessing consistency in LLM responses.