We thank the reviewers for reading the paper and for their detailed comments. However, establishing such results is outside the scope of the paper. R3 and R4 both note that partially correcting for confounding may hurt. We have corrected the typos you point out (1. is anonymized ref, 2. is estimate of all nuisance params, 3. is sigmoid) We agree; this was a minor error on our part. Beyond the fact that it fixes the bug, we think this condition is more interpretable--thank you!

Despite the importance of social science knowledge for various stakeholders, measuring its diffusion into different domains remains a challenge. This study uses a novel text-based approach to measure the idea-level diffusion of social science knowledge from the research domain to the journalism and policy-making domains. By doing so, we expand the detection of knowledge diffusion beyond the measurements of direct references. Our study focuses on media effects theories as key research ideas in the field of communication science. Using 72,703 documents (2000-2019) from three domains (i.e., research, journalism, and policy-making) that mention these ideas, we count the mentions of these ideas in each domain, estimate their domain-specific contexts, and track and compare differences across domains and over time. Overall, we find that diffusion patterns and dynamics vary considerably between ideas, with some ideas diffusing between other domains, while others do not. Based on the embedding regression approach, we compare contextualized meanings across domains and find that the distances between research and policy are typically larger than between research and journalism. We also find that ideas largely shift roles across domains - from being the theories themselves in research to sense-making in news to applied, administrative use in policy. Over time, we observe semantic convergence mainly for ideas that are practically oriented. Our results characterize the cross-domain diffusion patterns and dynamics of social science knowledge at the idea level, and we discuss the implications for measuring knowledge diffusion beyond citations.

As Large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into our lives, their inherent social biases remain a pressing concern. Detecting and evaluating these biases can be challenging because they are often implicit rather than explicit in nature, so developing evaluation methods that assess the implicit knowledge representations of LLMs is essential. We present a novel word association network methodology for evaluating implicit biases in LLMs based on simulating semantic priming within LLM-generated word association networks. Our prompt-based approach taps into the implicit relational structures encoded in LLMs, providing both quantitative and qualitative assessments of bias. Unlike most prompt-based evaluation methods, our method enables direct comparisons between various LLMs and humans, providing a valuable point of reference and offering new insights into the alignment of LLMs with human cognition. To demonstrate the utility of our methodology, we apply it to both humans and several widely used LLMs to investigate social biases related to gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and political party. Our results reveal both convergences and divergences between LLM and human biases, providing new perspectives on the potential risks of using LLMs. Our methodology contributes to a systematic, scalable, and generalizable framework for evaluating and comparing biases across multiple LLMs and humans, advancing the goal of transparent and socially responsible language technologies.

Political language is deeply intertwined with social identities. While social identities are often shaped by specific cultural contexts and expressed through particular uses of language, existing datasets for group and identity detection are predominantly English-centric, single-label and focus on coarse identity categories. We introduce HebID, the first multilabel Hebrew corpus for social identity detection: 5,536 sentences from Israeli politicians' Facebook posts (Dec 2018-Apr 2021), manually annotated for twelve nuanced social identities (e.g. Rightist, Ultra-Orthodox, Socially-oriented) grounded by survey data. We benchmark multilabel and single-label encoders alongside 2B-9B-parameter generative LLMs, finding that Hebrew-tuned LLMs provide the best results (macro-$F_1$ = 0.74). We apply our classifier to politicians' Facebook posts and parliamentary speeches, evaluating differences in popularity, temporal trends, clustering patterns, and gender-related variations in identity expression. We utilize identity choices from a national public survey, enabling a comparison between identities portrayed in elite discourse and the public's identity priorities. HebID provides a comprehensive foundation for studying social identities in Hebrew and can serve as a model for similar research in other non-English political contexts.

Social identity theory (SIT) and social categorization theory (SCT) are two facets of the social identity approach (SIA) to understanding social phenomena. SIT and SCT are models that describe and explain how people interact with one another socially, connecting the individual to the group through an understanding of underlying psychological mechanisms and intergroup behaviour. SIT, originally developed in the 1970s, and SCT, a later, more general offshoot, have been broadly applied to a range of social phenomena among people. The rise of increasingly social machines embedded in daily life has spurned efforts on understanding whether and how artificial agents can and do participate in SIA activities. As agents like social robots and chatbots powered by sophisticated large language models (LLMs) advance, understanding the real and potential roles of these technologies as social entities is crucial. Here, I provide a primer on SIA and extrapolate, through case studies and imagined examples, how SIT and SCT can apply to artificial social agents. I emphasize that not all human models and sub-theories will apply. I further argue that, given the emerging competence of these machines and our tendency to be taken in by them, we experts may need to don the hat of the uncanny killjoy, for our own good.

Evaluating the performance and biases of large language models (LLMs) through role-playing scenarios is becoming increasingly common, as LLMs often exhibit biased behaviors in these contexts. Building on this line of research, we introduce PapersPlease, a benchmark consisting of 3,700 moral dilemmas designed to investigate LLMs' decision-making in prioritizing various levels of human needs. In our setup, LLMs act as immigration inspectors deciding whether to approve or deny entry based on the short narratives of people. These narratives are constructed using the Existence, Relatedness, and Growth (ERG) theory, which categorizes human needs into three hierarchical levels. Our analysis of six LLMs reveals statistically significant patterns in decision-making, suggesting that LLMs encode implicit preferences. Additionally, our evaluation of the impact of incorporating social identities into the narratives shows varying responsiveness based on both motivational needs and identity cues, with some models exhibiting higher denial rates for marginalized identities. All data is publicly available at https://github.com/yeonsuuuu28/papers-please.

Machine learning (ML) has become a go-to solution for improving how we use, experience, and interact with technology (and the world around us). Unfortunately, studies have repeatedly shown that machine learning technologies may not provide adequate support for societal identities and experiences. Intersectionality is a sociological framework that provides a mechanism for explicitly considering complex social identities, focusing on social justice and power. While the framework of intersectionality can support the development of technologies that acknowledge and support all members of society, it has been adopted and adapted in ways that are not always true to its foundations, thereby weakening its potential for impact. To support the appropriate adoption and use of intersectionality for more equitable technological outcomes, we amplify the foundational intersectionality scholarship--Crenshaw, Combahee, and Collins (three C's), to create a socially relevant preliminary framework in developing machine-learning solutions. We use this framework to evaluate and report on the (mis)alignments of intersectionality application in machine learning literature.

Studies of human psychology have demonstrated that people are more motivated to extend empathy to in-group members than out-group members (Cikara et al., 2011). In this study, we investigate how this aspect of intergroup relations in humans is replicated by LLMs in an emotion intensity prediction task. In this task, the LLM is given a short description of an experience a person had that caused them to feel a particular emotion; the LLM is then prompted to predict the intensity of the emotion the person experienced on a numerical scale. By manipulating the group identities assigned to the LLM's persona (the "perceiver") and the person in the narrative (the "experiencer"), we measure how predicted emotion intensities differ between in-group and out-group settings. We observe that LLMs assign higher emotion intensity scores to in-group members than out-group members. This pattern holds across all three types of social groupings we tested: race/ethnicity, nationality, and religion. We perform an in-depth analysis on Llama-3.1-8B, the model which exhibited strongest intergroup bias among those tested.

Existing methods for simulating individual identities often oversimplify human complexity, which may lead to incomplete or flattened representations. To address this, we introduce SPeCtrum, a grounded framework for constructing authentic LLM agent personas by incorporating an individual's multidimensional self-concept. SPeCtrum integrates three core components: Social Identity (S), Personal Identity (P), and Personal Life Context (C), each contributing distinct yet interconnected aspects of identity. To evaluate SPeCtrum's effectiveness in identity representation, we conducted automated and human evaluations. Automated evaluations using popular drama characters showed that Personal Life Context (C)-derived from short essays on preferences and daily routines-modeled characters' identities more effectively than Social Identity (S) and Personal Identity (P) alone and performed comparably to the full SPC combination. In contrast, human evaluations involving real-world individuals found that the full SPC combination provided a more comprehensive self-concept representation than C alone. Our findings suggest that while C alone may suffice for basic identity simulation, integrating S, P, and C enhances the authenticity and accuracy of real-world identity representation. Overall, SPeCtrum offers a structured approach for simulating individuals in LLM agents, enabling more personalized human-AI interactions and improving the realism of simulation-based behavioral studies.