Skip to content
Open access

How Does Prompt Anchoring Affect Large Language Model Outputs?

Jul 2026 · Publications · 0 citations · 43 references

TL;DR

The study identifies prompt anchoring as a source of methodological variation in LLM-assisted content analysis, indicating that anchoring strategies should be explicitly specified, justified, and reported as part of the study methodology.

Abstract

This study examines how different prompt anchoring strategies influence the conceptual representation of LLM-generated keywords and compares those effects with the effects of model selection. A controlled exploratory experiment evaluated four prompt conditions—No Examples, Brief Keywords, Detailed Explanations, and Author-Based Examples—across T. D. Wilson’s four information behavior dimensions using 1068 abstracts. Four LLMs (GPT-4o-mini, Claude-3-haiku, Gemini-2.0-flash-lite, and DeepSeek V3) were evaluated under all prompt conditions, yielding 17,036 valid observations. Results indicate that model identity accounts for substantially more variance in keyword generation (η2 = 0.309) than prompt condition (η2 = 0.069), although these estimates should be interpreted with caution given the repeated-measures design and assumption violations. Prompt anchoring, however, consistently reconfigured the conceptual distribution of outputs across all models, indicating that it influences conceptual representation even when model effects are larger. Author-Based Examples substantially increased representation of the typically underrepresented Information Sharing dimension, whereas Detailed Explanations produced the highest overall generation rates and the broadest dimensional coverage. These findings further indicate that different anchoring strategies involve consistent trade-offs in dimensional coverage. The study thereby identifies prompt anchoring as a source of methodological variation in LLM-assisted content analysis, indicating that anchoring strategies should be explicitly specified, justified, and reported as part of the study methodology.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

It's How You Ask: Gender-Associated Linguistic Bias in LLMs

Professional communication is increasingly mediated by LLMs - but do these models serve all users equally? We show that when prompts contain linguistic features more commonly used by women (hedges, tag questions, collective reference), they systematically elicit shorter, less sophisticated, and less formal responses ac...

Katherine Van Koevering, A. Field · 0 citations
Jul 2026

Demographic Prompting at Scale: When More Attributes Hurt LLM-Human Agreement

The results demonstrate that demographic prompting is not a monolithic intervention: its utility is highly context-dependent, shaped by attribute signal quality, task characteristics, and model architecture.

M. Kamruzzaman, Shrabony Das, Gene Louis Kim · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Anchoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems: Prior Scores Compromise Evaluation Independence

It is shown that prior scores, even when included only as context metadata, anchor judgments and systematically shift ratings toward their values, and effective mitigation must be validated for the intended model and task or domain.

A. Kapetanović, Kemal Altwlkany, Andro Merćep et al. · 0 citations
Conference Open access 2026

What Tokens Truly Matter? The Logit Conflation Problem in LLM Sampling

This work identifies the Logit Conflation Problem, where a to-ken’s logit aggregates prompt-independent factors, including linguistic fluency and parametric associations, with prompt-relevance, and proposes SEAL-Sampling to isolate this component through attention-weighted attribution.

Pinlong Zhao, Huijun Tang, Pengfei Jiao et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.