mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Can LLM "Self-report"?: Evaluating the Validity of Self-report Scales in Measuring Personality Design in LLM-based Chatbots

arXiv 2412.00207 ↗First posted 29 Nov 2024cs.HCcited by 19

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

A chatbot's personality design is key to interaction quality. As chatbots evolved from rule-based systems to those powered by large language models (LLMs), evaluating the effectiveness of their personality design has become increasingly complex, particularly due to the open-ended nature of interactions. A recent and widely adopted method for assessing the personality design of LLM-based chatbots is the use of self-report questionnaires. These questionnaires, often borrowed from established human personality inventories, ask the chatbot to rate itself on various personality traits. Can LLM-based chatbots meaningfully "self-report" their personality? We created 500 chatbots with distinct personality designs and evaluated the validity of their self-report personality scores by examining human perceptions formed during interactions with these chatbots. Our findings indicate that the chatbot's answers on human personality scales exhibit weak correlations with both human-perceived personality traits and the overall interaction quality. These findings raise concerns about both the criterion validity and the predictive validity of self-report methods in this context. Further analysis revealed the role of task context and interaction in the chatbot's personality design assessment. We further discuss design implications for creating more contextualized and interactive evaluation.

Key facts. Cited by 19 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 29 Nov 2024.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 9; 2026: 10.

19 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025The Personality Illusion: Revealing Dissociation Between Self-Reports & Behavior in LLMscited by 35
  2. 2025Open Character Training: Shaping the Persona of AI Assistants through Constitutional AIcited by 19
  3. 2025From Prompts to Constructs: A Dual-Validity Framework for Large Language Model Research in Psychologycited by 9
  4. 2025A validity-guided workflow for robust large language model research in psychologycited by 8
  5. 2026Evaluating Alignment of Behavioral Dispositions in LLMscited by 6
  6. 2026AI Psychosis: Does Conversational AI Amplify Delusion-Related Language?cited by 5
  7. 2025Integrating Personality into Digital Humans: A Review of LLM-Driven Approaches for Virtual Realitycited by 2
  8. 2025Beyond BFI: The CSI for Enhanced Reliability and Validity in Evaluating LLM Personality Traitscited by 2
  9. 2025Human Psychometric Questionnaires Mischaracterize LLM Behaviorcited by 2
  10. 2025Does AI Coaching Prepare us for Workplace Negotiations?cited by 2
  11. 2026SocialVeil: Probing Social Intelligence of Language Agents under Communication Barrierscited by 2
  12. 2026HumanLLM: Benchmarking and Improving LLM Anthropomorphism via Human Cognitive Patternscited by 1
7 more
  1. 2026Distributional Open-Ended Evaluation of LLM Cultural Value Alignment Based on Value Codebookcited by 1
  2. 2026Rethinking Psychometric Evaluation of LLMs: When and Why Self-Reports Predict Behaviorcited by 1
  3. 2025PersonaX: Multimodal Datasets with LLM-Inferred Behavior Traitscited by 0
  4. 2026LLM Self-Explanations Fail Semantic Invariancecited by 0
  5. 2026Logarithmic Scores, Power-Law Discoveries: Disentangling Measurement from Coverage in Agent-Based Evaluationcited by 0
  6. 2026TUX: Measuring Human--AI Tacit Understandingcited by 0
  7. 2026The Unsampled Truth: Quantifying Prompt Artifacts in LM Psychometricscited by 0