mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Can Large Language Models Replace Human Subjects? A Large-Scale Replication of Scenario-Based Experiments in Psychology and Management

arXiv 2409.00128 ↗First posted 29 Aug 2024cs.CL cs.AI econ.GNcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into scientific research, particularly in the social sciences, where understanding human behavior is critical. Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in replicating human-like responses in various psychological experiments. We conducted a large-scale study replicating 156 psychological experiments from top social science journals using three state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and DeepSeek v3). Our results reveal that while LLMs demonstrate high replication rates for main effects (73-81%) and moderate to strong success with interaction effects (46-63%), They consistently produce larger effect sizes than human studies, with Fisher Z values approximately 2-3 times higher than human studies. Notably, LLMs show significantly lower replication rates for studies involving socially sensitive topics such as race, gender and ethics. When original studies reported null findings, LLMs produced significant results at remarkably high rates (68-83%) - while this could reflect cleaner data with less noise, as evidenced by narrower confidence intervals, it also suggests potential risks of effect size overestimation. Our results demonstrate both the promise and challenges of LLMs in psychological research, offering efficient tools for pilot testing and rapid hypothesis validation while enriching rather than replacing traditional human subject studies, yet requiring more nuanced interpretation and human validation for complex social phenomena and culturally sensitive research questions.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Aug 2024.

Builds on

12 of 42 references.

References · 12

  1. 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 759
  2. 2020Aligning AI With Shared Human Valuescited by 706
  3. 2022Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studiescited by 506
  4. 2022Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3cited by 389
  5. 2021Large Pre-trained Language Models Contain Human-like Biases of What is Right and Wrong to Docited by 178
  6. 2023Do Large Language Models Show Decision Heuristics Similar to Humans? A Case Study Using GPT-3.5cited by 41
  7. 2024Limited Ability of LLMs to Simulate Human Psychological Behaviours: a Psychometric Analysiscited by 30
  8. 2024AI for social science and social science of AI: A Surveycited by 29
  9. 2024Can LLMs Replace Economic Choice Prediction Labs? The Case of Language-based Persuasion Gamescited by 12
  10. 2024Detecting Hallucination and Coverage Errors in Retrieval Augmented Generation for Controversial Topicscited by 9
  11. 2023ChatGPT and Bard Responses to Polarizing Questionscited by 4
  12. 2022The Minimum Wage as an Anchor: Effects on Determinations of Fairness by Humans and AIcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.

5 papers.