Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Can Large Language Models Replace Human Subjects? A Large-Scale Replication of Scenario-Based Experiments in Psychology and Management

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.00128 v3 pith:TS3AODL4 submitted 2024-08-29 cs.CL cs.AIecon.GNq-fin.EC

classification cs.CLcs.AIecon.GNq-fin.EC
keywords humanllmsstudiesexperimentspsychologicalratesreplicationresearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into scientific research, particularly in the social sciences, where understanding human behavior is critical. Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in replicating human-like responses in various psychological experiments. We conducted a large-scale study replicating 156 psychological experiments from top social science journals using three state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and DeepSeek v3). Our results reveal that while LLMs demonstrate high replication rates for main effects (73-81%) and moderate to strong success with interaction effects (46-63%), They consistently produce larger effect sizes than human studies, with Fisher Z values approximately 2-3 times higher than human studies. Notably, LLMs show significantly lower replication rates for studies involving socially sensitive topics such as race, gender and ethics. When original studies reported null findings, LLMs produced significant results at remarkably high rates (68-83%) - while this could reflect cleaner data with less noise, as evidenced by narrower confidence intervals, it also suggests potential risks of effect size overestimation. Our results demonstrate both the promise and challenges of LLMs in psychological research, offering efficient tools for pilot testing and rapid hypothesis validation while enriching rather than replacing traditional human subject studies, yet requiring more nuanced interpretation and human validation for complex social phenomena and culturally sensitive research questions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. PSYCHE: A Multi-faceted Patient Simulation Framework for Evaluation of Psychiatric Assessment Conversational Agents

    cs.CL 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A construct-grounded simulated patient framework for quantitatively evaluating psychiatric assessment conversational agents, validated by psychiatrist conformity ratings and correlation with expert scores.

  2. AI4Research: A Survey of Artificial Intelligence for Scientific Research

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes AI-for-research work into five tasks, comprehension, survey, discovery, writing, and peer review, and compiles associated tools and benchmarks.

Pith tools