mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

How Individual Traits and Language Styles Shape Preferences In Open-ended User-LLM Interaction: A Preliminary Study

arXiv 2504.17083 ↗First posted 23 Apr 2025cs.CLcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

What makes an interaction with the LLM more preferable for the user? While it is intuitive to assume that information accuracy in the LLM's responses would be one of the influential variables, recent studies have found that inaccurate LLM's responses could still be preferable when they are perceived to be more authoritative, certain, well-articulated, or simply verbose. These variables interestingly fall under the broader category of language style, implying that the style in the LLM's responses might meaningfully influence users' preferences. This hypothesized dynamic could have double-edged consequences: enhancing the overall user experience while simultaneously increasing their susceptibility to risks such as LLM's misinformation or hallucinations. In this short paper, we present our preliminary studies in exploring this subject. Through a series of exploratory and experimental user studies, we found that LLM's language style does indeed influence user's preferences, but how and which language styles influence the preference varied across different user populations, and more interestingly, moderated by the user's very own individual traits. As a preliminary work, the findings in our studies should be interpreted with caution, particularly given the limitations in our samples, which still need wider demographic diversity and larger sample sizes. Our future directions will first aim to address these limitations, which would enable a more comprehensive joint effect analysis between the language style, individual traits, and preferences, and further investigate the potential causal relationship between and beyond these variables.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Apr 2025.

Builds on

12 of 28 references.

References · 12

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  2. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  3. 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 4,033
  4. 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,184
  5. 2013A Computational Approach to Politeness with Application to Social Factorscited by 106
  6. 2024A Comprehensive Survey of Hallucination in Large Language, Image, Video and Audio Foundation Modelscited by 100
  7. 2023Is Stack Overflow Obsolete? An Empirical Study of the Characteristics of ChatGPT Answers to Stack Overflow Questionscited by 42
  8. 2025Investigating Affective Use and Emotional Well-being on ChatGPTcited by 38
  9. 2020Gibbs Sampling with Peoplecited by 28
  10. 2024Hybrid Preferences: Learning to Route Instances for Human vs. AI Feedbackcited by 26
  11. 2024The Future of Open Human Feedbackcited by 10
  12. 2024Chatbot Companionship: A Mixed-Methods Study of Companion Chatbot Usage Patterns and Their Relationship to Loneliness in Active Userscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 4.

7 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Personality Matters: User Traits Predict LLM Preferences in Multi-Turn Collaborative Tasks
  2. 2026Towards Natural Personalization: Evaluating Long-Horizon Preference Following in Personalized User-LLM Interactions
  3. 2026The Governance of Human-LLM Interaction: Safety Gating, Civility Steering, and Affective Default Lock-In
  4. 2023Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design
  5. 2026Dialect vs Demographics: Quantifying LLM Bias from Implicit Linguistic Signals vs. Explicit User Profiles
  6. 2025Not Like Us, Hunty: Measuring Perceptions and Behavioral Effects of Minoritized Anthropomorphic Cues in LLMs
  7. 2025EVALUESTEER: Measuring Reward Model Steerability Towards Values and Preferences
  8. 2025Alignment Revisited: Are Large Language Models Consistent in Stated and Revealed Preferences?