Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

People will agree what I think: Investigating LLM's False Consensus Effect

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 2407.12007 v2 pith:65YJ22OA submitted 2024-06-16 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CL

classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.CL
keywords llmsfalsestudiesbeliefsbiasescognitivecommunicationconsensus
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been recently adopted in interactive systems requiring communication. As the false belief in a model can harm the usability of such systems, LLMs should not have cognitive biases that humans have. Psychologists especially focus on the False Consensus Effect (FCE), a cognitive bias where individuals overestimate the extent to which others share their beliefs or behaviors, because FCE can distract smooth communication by posing false beliefs. However, previous studies have less examined FCE in LLMs thoroughly, which needs more consideration of confounding biases, general situations, and prompt changes. Therefore, in this paper, we conduct two studies to examine the FCE phenomenon in LLMs. In Study 1, we investigate whether LLMs have FCE. In Study 2, we explore how various prompting styles affect the demonstration of FCE. As a result of these studies, we identified that popular LLMs have FCE. Also, the result specifies the conditions when FCE becomes more or less prevalent compared to normal usage.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Reasoning Strategies in Large Language Models: Can They Follow, Prefer, and Optimize?

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Prompting LLMs with distinct reasoning strategies and ensembling their outputs improves accuracy on logical deduction tasks, though not as consistently as the paper claims.

Pith tools