Personality, Role, and Expressive Style in Large Language Models: An Interactionist Analysis
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Prompt-based personality control is a key technique for designing large language model (LLM) dialogue agents that behave consistently across social contexts. However, specifying Big Five personality traits (BFTs) in a prompt does not ensure that the intended traits are expressed in generated utterances. This paper investigates this mismatch from an interactionist perspective, viewing personality expression as a context-dependent outcome shaped by the interplay between trait specification and situational factors. We analyze how perceived BFT expression in LLM-generated dialogue is influenced by three prompt factors: personality traits, dialogue roles, and expressive styles. Using a factorial design that combines six personality conditions, three roles, and three expressive-style conditions, we generate 1,080 LLM-agent dialogues in each of English and Japanese. We then evaluate the target agent's utterances using an LLM-as-a-judge framework to estimate expressed Big Five traits. The results show that expressed personality is shaped not only by explicit trait specification, but also by dialogue role and expressive style. These effects are trait-specific: dialogue role strongly influences Openness, expressive style substantially shapes Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, and explicit trait specification dominates Neuroticism. Even without explicit personality-trait specification, social and expressive conditions induce distinct personality-like impressions. Cross-linguistic comparisons show broadly similar patterns between English and Japanese dialogues, with noticeable differences only under specific combinations of personality, role, and expressive style. These findings suggest that personality control in LLM agents should be understood not as a direct consequence of trait prompting, but as a context-dependent process involving personality specification, social role, and expressive style.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 66 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 May 2026.
Builds on
10 of 66 references.
References · 10
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2018Personalizing Dialogue Agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too?cited by 820
- 2023PersonaLLM: Investigating the Ability of Large Language Models to Express Personality Traitscited by 229
- 2023Better Zero-Shot Reasoning with Role-Play Promptingcited by 220
- 2023Large Language Models Understand and Can be Enhanced by Emotional Stimulicited by 143
- 2026HumanLM: Simulating Users with State Alignment Beats Response Imitationcited by 31
- 2023Controlling Personality Style in Dialogue with Zero-Shot Prompt-Based Learningcited by 14
- 2025Linear Personality Probing and Steering in LLMs: A Big Five Studycited by 9
- 2024Assessing Social Alignment: Do Personality-Prompted Large Language Models Behave Like Humans?cited by 8
- 2026From Biased Chatbots to Biased Agents: Examining Role Assignment Effects on LLM Agent Robustnesscited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Personality Expression Across Contexts: Linguistic and Behavioral Variation in LLM Agents
- 2024LLM Agents in Interaction: Measuring Personality Consistency and Linguistic Alignment in Interacting Populations of Large Language Models
- 2026Do Personality-Tuned LLMs Make Better Social Agents?
- 2026Behavior-Adaptive Conversational Agents: Toward a Fluid Personality Framework
- 2025Can LLM Agents Maintain a Persona in Discourse?
- 2025Vibe Check: Understanding the Effects of LLM-Based Conversational Agents' Personality and Alignment on User Perceptions in Goal-Oriented Tasks
- 2026Structured Personality Control and Adaptation for LLM Agents
- 2023On the Effectiveness of Creating Conversational Agent Personalities Through Prompting