Self-reported archetypes and behavioral failures in Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Every large language model (LLM) has behavioral traits and moral preferences that comprise its character. Whether by design or as an emergent property of training, these systems exhibit persistent dispositions that shape how they interact, comply, resist, and err, yet the structure of LLM character remains poorly understood. We map the self-reported personality archetypes of 22 LLMs spanning closed-source frontier systems (GPT-4.0-5.2, Grok-3/4, Gemini 2.5 Pro/Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5/4.6) and open-source models (Llama, DeepSeek, OLMo, and Qwen series). Each model self-rated across 464 bipolar semantic-differential trait pairs, and the resulting profiles were projected into a six-dimensional archetypal space derived from crowd-sourced ratings of 2,000 fictional characters using the Archetypometrics framework. Closed-source models' self-rating traits align with the empirical trait co-occurrence structure of human-rated fictional characters, suggesting coherent, human-like self-representations organized around combinations of four recurring archetypal dimensions: Hero, Angel, Traditionalist, and Geek. Their closest analogues include Data, Vision, and Janet. Open-source models show weaker, noisier, and internally contradictory self-representations, occupying a diffuse region of archetype space with weak structure. Cross-referencing self-reported profiles with developer constitutions reveals a consequential gap between claimed character and enacted behavior: hallucination undermines claimed precision, sycophancy complicates claimed kindness, and agentic failures contradict claimed obedience. These self-ratings should therefore be interpreted not as neutral measurements of model character, but as structured outputs of the same optimization processes that shape model behavior. This work provides a reproducible, character-grounded framework for evaluating what LLMs are, not just what they do.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 0 of its 88 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jul 2026.
Builds on
0 of 88 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026What Models Express, Suppress, and Resist: Auditing Open-Weight LLMs with Persona Vectors
- 2023PersonaLLM: Investigating the Ability of Large Language Models to Express Personality Traits
- 2025Too Good to be Bad: On the Failure of LLMs to Role-Play Villains
- 2024Open Models, Closed Minds? On Agents Capabilities in Mimicking Human Personalities through Open Large Language Models
- 2025Humanizing LLMs: A Survey of Psychological Measurements with Tools, Datasets, and Human-Agent Applications
- 2025From Five Dimensions to Many: Large Language Models as Precise and Interpretable Psychological Profilers
- 2025The Personality Illusion: Revealing Dissociation Between Self-Reports & Behavior in LLMs
- 2026An LLM-Native Psychometric Instrument Reveals a Self-Report--Behavior Gap Across 25 Models