Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40830398›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

What social stratifications in bias blind spot can tell us about implicit social bias in both LLMs and humans.

Sarah V Bentley, David Evans, Claire K Naughtin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sarah V BentleyData61, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Eveleigh, Australia. sarah.bentley@data61.csiro.au.
David EvansData61, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Eveleigh, Australia.
Claire K NaughtinData61, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Eveleigh, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are the engines behind generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications, the most well-known being chatbots. As conversational agents, they-much like the humans on whose data they are trained-exhibit social bias. The nature of social bias is that it unfairly represents one group over another. Explicit bias has been observed in LLMs in the form of racial and gender bias, but we know little about less visible implicit forms of social bias. Highly prevalent in society, implicit human bias is hard to mitigate due to a well-replicated phenomenon known as introspection illusion. This describes a strong propensity to underestimate biases in oneself and overestimate them in others-a form of 'bias blind spot'. In a series of studies with LLMs and humans, we measured variance in perception of others inherent in bias blind spot in order to determine if it was socially stratified, comparing ratings between LLMs and humans. We also assessed whether human bias blind spot extended to perceptions of LLMs. Results revealed perception of others to be socially stratified, such that those with lower educational, financial, and social status were perceived more negatively. This biased 'perception' was significantly more evident in the ratings of LLMs than of humans. Furthermore, we found evidence that humans were more blind to the likelihood of this bias in AI than in themselves. We discuss these findings in relation to AI, and how pursuing its responsible deployment requires contending with our own-as well as our technology's-bias blind spots.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceLanguagePrejudiceAdultBiasFemaleHumansMaleSocial Perception

Identifiers

PMID40830398
PMCPMC12365300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.