# Do Gender Cues Affect LLM Value Trade-offs? Evidence from a Controlled Decision Benchmark

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.02214 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.02214/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 19 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [ChatGLM: A Family of Large Language Models from GLM-130B to GLM-4 All Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12793/) (2024)
- [Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.06876/) (2018)
- [Theories of "Gender" in NLP Bias Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.02526/) (2022)
- [DailyDilemmas: Revealing Value Preferences of LLMs with Quandaries of Daily Life](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02683/) (2024)
- [Stop! In the Name of Flaws: Disentangling Personal Names and Sociodemographic Attributes in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.17159/) (2024)
- [Gender Bias in Decision-Making with Large Language Models: A Study of Relationship Conflicts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.11084/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models are increasingly used in value-sensitive decision settings, where irrelevant demographic cues should not alter judgments. We construct the Realistic Value Decision Benchmark (RVDB), a controlled benchmark that varies only the role-gender configuration while holding the scenario, ordered value pair, roles, candidate decisions, Value Distance, and Decision Severity fixed. Using a position-balanced evaluation across seven models, we test whether models preserve decision invariance under gender perturbations and whether their self-attributions reflect observed behavioral changes. We find that explicit gender cues induce bounded but systematic decision flips, including under an explicit gender-attribution prompt that asks models to report whether gender influenced their choice. Cross-gender role swaps reveal a consistent female-proposed-decision asymmetry, while models often attribute flipped decisions to No Influence or other non-gender factors. Further analysis shows that gender effects concentrate near less determinate value boundaries and under more severe decision contexts, suggesting that gender cues act as local boundary-shifting factors rather than global overrides of value reasoning. Value rankings remain largely stable, but ordered value-pair trade-offs shift unevenly across role-gender configurations. These results show that gender can enter LLM value trade-offs behaviorally while remaining obscured in self-attribution, motivating controlled behavioral audits beyond explanation-based evaluation.