Vox Populi, Vox AI? Using Large Language Models to Estimate German Vote Choice

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Leah von der Heyde, Anna-Carolina Haensch, Alexander Wenz
{"title":"Vox Populi, Vox AI? Using Large Language Models to Estimate German Vote Choice","authors":"Leah von der Heyde, Anna-Carolina Haensch, Alexander Wenz","doi":"10.1177/08944393251337014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“Synthetic samples” generated by large language models (LLMs) have been argued to complement or replace traditional surveys, assuming their training data is grounded in human-generated data that potentially reflects attitudes and behaviors prevalent in the population. Initial US-based studies that have prompted LLMs to mimic survey respondents found that the responses match survey data. However, the relationship between the respective target population and LLM training data might affect the generalizability of such findings. In this paper, we critically evaluate the use of LLMs for public opinion research in a different context, by investigating whether LLMs can estimate vote choice in Germany. We generate a synthetic sample matching the 2017 German Longitudinal Election Study respondents and ask the LLM GPT-3.5 to predict each respondent’s vote choice. Comparing these predictions to the survey-based estimates on the aggregate and subgroup levels, we find that GPT-3.5 exhibits a bias towards the Green and Left parties. While the LLM predictions capture the tendencies of “typical” voters, they miss more complex factors of vote choice. By examining the LLM-based prediction of voting behavior in a non-English speaking context, our study contributes to research on the extent to which LLMs can be leveraged for studying public opinion. The findings point to disparities in opinion representation in LLMs and underscore the limitations in applying them for public opinion estimation.","PeriodicalId":49509,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Computer Review","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science Computer Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393251337014","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

“Synthetic samples” generated by large language models (LLMs) have been argued to complement or replace traditional surveys, assuming their training data is grounded in human-generated data that potentially reflects attitudes and behaviors prevalent in the population. Initial US-based studies that have prompted LLMs to mimic survey respondents found that the responses match survey data. However, the relationship between the respective target population and LLM training data might affect the generalizability of such findings. In this paper, we critically evaluate the use of LLMs for public opinion research in a different context, by investigating whether LLMs can estimate vote choice in Germany. We generate a synthetic sample matching the 2017 German Longitudinal Election Study respondents and ask the LLM GPT-3.5 to predict each respondent’s vote choice. Comparing these predictions to the survey-based estimates on the aggregate and subgroup levels, we find that GPT-3.5 exhibits a bias towards the Green and Left parties. While the LLM predictions capture the tendencies of “typical” voters, they miss more complex factors of vote choice. By examining the LLM-based prediction of voting behavior in a non-English speaking context, our study contributes to research on the extent to which LLMs can be leveraged for studying public opinion. The findings point to disparities in opinion representation in LLMs and underscore the limitations in applying them for public opinion estimation.
大众之声,人工智能之声?使用大型语言模型估计德国人的投票选择
有人认为,由大型语言模型(llm)生成的“合成样本”可以补充或取代传统的调查,假设它们的训练数据基于人类生成的数据,这些数据可能反映了人群中普遍存在的态度和行为。美国最初的研究促使法学硕士模仿调查对象,发现他们的回答与调查数据相符。然而,各自的目标人群和法学硕士培训数据之间的关系可能会影响这些发现的普遍性。在本文中,我们通过调查法学硕士是否可以估计德国的投票选择,批判性地评估了在不同背景下法学硕士在民意研究中的使用。我们生成了一个与2017年德国纵向选举研究受访者匹配的合成样本,并要求LLM GPT-3.5预测每个受访者的投票选择。将这些预测与基于调查的总体和子群体水平的估计进行比较,我们发现GPT-3.5显示出对绿党和左翼政党的偏见。虽然法学硕士的预测捕捉到了“典型”选民的倾向,但它们忽略了更复杂的投票选择因素。通过检验在非英语语境下基于法学硕士的投票行为预测,我们的研究有助于研究法学硕士在多大程度上可以用于研究民意。研究结果指出了法学硕士中意见代表的差异,并强调了将法学硕士应用于民意评估的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Science Computer Review
Social Science Computer Review 社会科学-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
4.90%
发文量
95
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Unique Scope Social Science Computer Review is an interdisciplinary journal covering social science instructional and research applications of computing, as well as societal impacts of informational technology. Topics included: artificial intelligence, business, computational social science theory, computer-assisted survey research, computer-based qualitative analysis, computer simulation, economic modeling, electronic modeling, electronic publishing, geographic information systems, instrumentation and research tools, public administration, social impacts of computing and telecommunications, software evaluation, world-wide web resources for social scientists. Interdisciplinary Nature Because the Uses and impacts of computing are interdisciplinary, so is Social Science Computer Review. The journal is of direct relevance to scholars and scientists in a wide variety of disciplines. In its pages you''ll find work in the following areas: sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, psychology, computer literacy, computer applications, and methodology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信