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.
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.