Mimicry without understanding: the origins of decision bias in large language models
Summary
This paper investigates how LLMs like ChatGPT-4o and Qwen develop decision biases through faulty mimicry of human behavior, even when preferences are not biased, and shows that scientific descriptions of biases can become self-fulfilling prophecies for LLM responses.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 08/14/26, 09:25 AM
# Mimicry without understanding: the origins of decision bias in large language models Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12339](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12339) [View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.12339) > Abstract:Large Language models \(LLMs\) were found to be susceptible to a host of social, affective, and cognitive biases\. We examined two mechanisms through which such biases can be generated even when human preferences \(in the training data\) are not biased or when they are correctly categorized as being biased\. The first is faulty mimicry of preferences based on human behavior: this involves LLMs inferring human preferences even when behaviors are logically unrelated to preferences\. The second is mimicry of explicitly biased human behaviors\. In four studies focusing on economic biases, we find that ChatGPT\-4o and Qwen exhibited social proof biases even when prompted with reports of human behaviors that were clearly non\-indicative of individuals' actual preferences\. LLMs also displayed loss aversion when it was explicitly described as a bias\. Indeed, when prompted with detailed scientific reports, the extent of the bias \(i\.e\., loss aversion\) in the scientific report predicted LLMs' own subsequent bias\. Scientific papers of biases can thus become self\-fulfilling prophecies, at least when it comes to LLMs' responses\. The current study goes beyond fleshing out LLM biases and sheds light on the underlying component processes\. ## Submission history From: Eldad Yechiam \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/236a338c/2608.12339)\] **\[v1\]**Wed, 3 Jun 2026 10:05:53 UTC \(1,143 KB\)
Similar Articles
Confirming Our Biases? Evaluating the Capabilities, Risks, and Societal Impact of Large Language Models
This preprint evaluates how six large language models respond to prompt framing and biased prompts across 160 prompts, finding that LLMs systematically adapt their responses to align with prompt framing even in factual contexts, potentially reinforcing user biases.
Persona-Assigned Large Language Models Exhibit Human-Like Motivated Reasoning
This paper investigates whether assigning personas to large language models induces human-like motivated reasoning, finding that persona-assigned LLMs show up to 9% reduced veracity discernment and are up to 90% more likely to evaluate scientific evidence in ways congruent with their induced political identity, with prompt-based debiasing largely ineffective.
Conditional Cognitive Biases in LLMs: How Biased User Turns Modulate In-Context Reasoning
This paper introduces a three-condition experimental framework and a benchmark of 24,300 prompts to study how biased user turns modulate cognitive bias expression in frontier LLMs under multi-turn interactions. It finds that biased conversational context amplifies bias in most models, while explicit bias cues can trigger alignment-related suppression.
Using Cognitive Models to Improve Language Model Simulation of Human Persuasion Games
This paper proposes Equation-to-Behavior Prompting and reinforcement learning to guide large language models to simulate diverse human decision-making patterns in persuasion games, showing improved belief accuracy and training outcomes.
Large Language Models Are Overconfident in Their Own Responses
This paper investigates why instruction-tuned LLMs are overconfident in their own responses, identifying an 'ownership bias' that gives higher confidence to self-generated answers. It proposes a simple inference-time strategy to reframe the model's answer as user input, improving calibration by up to 26% without retraining.