Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41507174›Full record

ArticleNature communications2026

Intersectional biases in narratives produced by open-ended prompting of generative language models.

Evan Shieh, Faye-Marie Vassel, Cassidy R Sugimoto, Thema Monroe-White

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Evan ShiehYoung Data Scientists League, Bellevue, WA, USA. evan.shieh@youngdatascientists.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-3864-3161
Faye-Marie VasselStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5721-6473
Cassidy R SugimotoSchool of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8608-3203
Thema Monroe-WhiteSchar School of Policy and Government; School of Computing, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA. tmonroew@gmu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9212-5430

Funding

National Science Foundation (NSF) CCF-1918549National Science Foundation (NSF) SOS-2152288
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid deployment of generative language models has raised concerns about social biases affecting the well-being of diverse consumers. The extant literature on generative language models has primarily examined bias via explicit identity prompting. However, prior research on bias in language-based technology platforms has shown that discrimination can occur even when identity terms are not specified explicitly. Here, we advance studies of generative language model bias by considering a broader set of natural use cases via open-ended prompting, which we refer to as a laissez-faire environment. In this setting, we find that across 500,000 observations, generated outputs from the base models of five publicly available language models (ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4, Claude 2.0, Llama 2, and PaLM 2) are more likely to omit characters with minoritized race, gender, and/or sexual orientation identities compared to reported levels in the U.S. Census, or relegate them to subordinated roles as opposed to dominant ones. We also document patterns of stereotyping across language model-generated outputs with the potential to disproportionately affect minoritized individuals. Our findings highlight the urgent need for regulations to ensure responsible innovation while protecting consumers from potential harms caused by language models.

Indexed as

NarrationBiasFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansLarge Language ModelsStereotyping

Identifiers

PMID41507174
PMCPMC12864755

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.