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.
The results show that LLMs systematically adapt their responses to align with prompt framing, even in factual contexts, which suggests that prompt framing can outweigh factual consistency in model responses.
Mudar Adas, Polina Tsvilodub, Michael Franke et al.· 0 citations
This work evaluates four instruction-tuned model families on three objective datasets and three subjective datasets and shows that prompt robustness depends on the question type, the prompt change, and the model.
Sadia Kamal, A. Patwary, Anthony Marchiafava et al.· 0 citations
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...
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· arXiv.org· 0 citations
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
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.· Annual Meeting of the Associ...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.