# Embracing Dialectic Intersubjectivity: Coordination of Different Perspectives in Content Analysis with LLM Persona Simulation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.00903 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.00903/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 72 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Feb 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.15056/) (2023)
- [Computational Optimal Transport](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.00567/) (2018)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.06899/) (2022)
- [Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.03514/) (2023)
- [S3: Social-network Simulation System with Large Language Model-Empowered Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.14984/) (2023)
- [The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on ChatGPT's pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.01768/) (2023)
- [The Alternative Annotator Test for LLM-as-a-Judge: How to Statistically Justify Replacing Human Annotators with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.10970/) (2025)
- [Hidden Persuaders: LLMs' Political Leaning and Their Influence on Voters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.24190/) (2024)
- [LLM-Assisted Content Analysis: Using Large Language Models to Support Deductive Coding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.14924/) (2023)
- [AI Alignment and Social Choice: Fundamental Limitations and Policy Implications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.16048/) (2023)
- [Human and LLM Biases in Hate Speech Annotations: A Socio-Demographic Analysis of Annotators and Targets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07991/) (2024)
- [ChatGPT v.s. Media Bias: A Comparative Study of GPT-3.5 and Fine-tuned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.20158/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This study attempts to advancing content analysis methodology from consensus-oriented to coordination-oriented practices, thereby embracing diverse coding outputs and exploring the dynamics among differential perspectives. As an exploratory investigation of this approach, we evaluate six GPT-4o configurations to analyze sentiment in Fox News and MSNBC transcripts on Biden and Trump during the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, examining patterns across these models. By assessing each model's alignment with ideological perspectives, we explore how partisan selective processing could be identified in LLM-Assisted Content Analysis (LACA). Findings reveal that partisan persona LLMs exhibit stronger ideological biases when processing politically congruent content. Additionally, intercoder reliability is higher among same-partisan personas compared to cross-partisan pairs. This approach enhances the nuanced understanding of LLM outputs and advances the integrity of AI-driven social science research, enabling simulations of real-world implications.