Leveraging Interview-Informed LLMs to Model Survey Responses: Comparative Insights from AI-Generated and Human Data
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Mixed methods research integrates quantitative and qualitative data but faces challenges in aligning their distinct structures, particularly in examining measurement characteristics and individual response patterns. Advances in large language models (LLMs) offer promising solutions by generating synthetic survey responses informed by qualitative data. This study investigates whether LLMs, guided by personal interviews, can reliably predict human survey responses, using the Behavioral Regulations in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ) and interviews from after-school program staff as a case study. Results indicate that LLMs capture overall response patterns but exhibit lower variability than humans. Incorporating interview data improves response diversity for some models (e.g., Claude, GPT), while well-crafted prompts and low-temperature settings enhance alignment between LLM and human responses. Demographic information had less impact than interview content on alignment accuracy. These findings underscore the potential of interview-informed LLMs to bridge qualitative and quantitative methodologies while revealing limitations in response variability, emotional interpretation, and psychometric fidelity. Future research should refine prompt design, explore bias mitigation, and optimize model settings to enhance the validity of LLM-generated survey data in social science research.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 May 2025.
Builds on
23 of 54 references.
References · 23
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2022Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samplescited by 737
- 2023Capabilities of GPT-4 on Medical Challenge Problemscited by 630
- 2024Scaling Synthetic Data Creation with 1,000,000,000 Personascited by 397
- 2022Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3cited by 389
- 2024Capabilities of Gemini Models in Medicinecited by 231
- 2023PersonaLLM: Investigating the Ability of Large Language Models to Express Personality Traitscited by 229
- 2024From Persona to Personalization: A Survey on Role-Playing Language Agentscited by 206
- 2023Practical and Ethical Challenges of Large Language Models in Education: A Systematic Scoping Reviewcited by 83
- 2025LLM Generated Persona is a Promise with a Catchcited by 77
- 2024Random Silicon Sampling: Simulating Human Sub-Population Opinion Using a Large Language Model Based on Group-Level Demographic Informationcited by 48
- 2024Leveraging LLM-Respondents for Item Evaluation: a Psychometric Analysiscited by 31
11 more
- 2024LLMs generate structurally realistic social networks but overestimate political homophilycited by 31
- 2023Who is ChatGPT? Benchmarking LLMs' Psychological Portrayal Using PsychoBenchcited by 28
- 2023A Comparative Study of Open-Source Large Language Models, GPT-4 and Claude 2: Multiple-Choice Test Taking in Nephrologycited by 26
- 2024Can Large Language Models Serve as Data Analysts? A Multi-Agent Assisted Approach for Qualitative Data Analysiscited by 20
- 2023Revisiting the Reliability of Psychological Scales on Large Language Modelscited by 16
- 2023Leveraging generative artificial intelligence to simulate student learning behaviorcited by 16
- 2023A Large Language Model Approach to Educational Survey Feedback Analysiscited by 14
- 2024Review-LLM: Harnessing Large Language Models for Personalized Review Generationcited by 14
- 2024Unveiling Scoring Processes: Dissecting the Differences between LLMs and Human Graders in Automatic Scoringcited by 13
- 2024A Large-Scale Simulation on Large Language Models for Decision-Making in Political Sciencecited by 9
- 2024Developing a Tutoring Dialog Dataset to Optimize LLMs for Educational Usecited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.