Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on NLP classification tasks. However, they typically rely on aggregated labels-often via majority voting-which can obscure the human disagreement inherent in subjective annotations. This study examines whether LLMs can capture multiple perspectives and reflect annotator disagreement in subjective tasks such as hate speech and offensive language detection. We use in-context learning (ICL) in zero-shot and few-shot settings, evaluating four open-source LLMs across three label modeling strategies: aggregated hard labels, and disaggregated hard and soft labels. In few-shot prompting, we assess demonstration selection methods based on textual similarity (BM25, PLM-based), annotation disagreement (entropy), a combined ranking, and example ordering strategies (random vs. curriculum-based). Results show that multi-perspective generation is viable in zero-shot settings, while few-shot setups often fail to capture the full spectrum of human judgments. Prompt design and demonstration selection notably affect performance, though example ordering has limited impact. These findings highlight the challenges of modeling subjectivity with LLMs and the importance of building more perspective-aware, socially intelligent models.

Prior studies show that adopting the annotation diversity shaped by different backgrounds and life experiences and incorporating them into the model learning, i.e. multi-perspective approach, contribute to the development of more responsible models. Thus, in this paper we propose a new framework for designing and further evaluating perspective-aware models on stance detection task,in which multiple annotators assign stances based on a controversial topic. We also share a new dataset established through obtaining both human and LLM annotations. Results show that the multi-perspective approach yields better classification performance (higher F1-scores), outperforming the traditional approaches that use a single ground-truth, while displaying lower model confidence scores, probably due to the high level of subjectivity of the stance detection task.

Subjective NLP tasks usually rely on human annotations provided by multiple annotators, whose judgments may vary due to their diverse backgrounds and life experiences. Traditional methods often aggregate multiple annotations into a single ground truth, disregarding the diversity in perspectives that arises from annotator disagreement. In this preliminary study, we examine the effect of including multiple annotations on model accuracy in classification. Our methodology investigates the performance of perspective-aware classification models in stance detection task and further inspects if annotator disagreement affects the model confidence. The results show that multi-perspective approach yields better classification performance outperforming the baseline which uses the single label. This entails that designing more inclusive perspective-aware AI models is not only an essential first step in implementing responsible and ethical AI, but it can also achieve superior results than using the traditional approaches.