Cited by 81Ethics and Social Impacts of AIScience Education and PerceptionsSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

Cognitive network science reveals bias in GPT-3, GPT-3.5 turbo, and GPT-4 mirroring math anxiety in high-school students

Open access
Abramski, Katherine, Citraro, Salvatore, Lombardi, Luigi, Rossetti, Giulio, Stella, Massimo·2023·Big Data and Cognitive Computing

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly integrated into our lives. Hence, it is important to understand the biases present in their outputs in order to avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes, which originate in our own flawed ways of thinking. This challenge requires developing new benchmarks and methods for quantifying affective and semantic bias, keeping in mind that LLMs act as psycho-social mirrors that reflect the views and tendencies that are prevalent in society. One such tendency that has harmful negative effects is the global phenomenon of anxiety toward math and STEM subjects. In this study, we introduce a novel application of network science and cognitive psychology to understand biases towards math and STEM fields in LLMs from ChatGPT, such as GPT-3, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4. Specifically, we use behavioral forma mentis networks (BFMNs) to understand how these LLMs frame math and STEM disciplines in relation to other concepts. We use data obtained by probing the three LLMs in a language generation task that has previously been applied to humans. Our findings indicate that LLMs have negative perceptions of math and STEM fields, associating math with negative concepts in 6 cases out of 10. We observe significant differences across OpenAI’s models: newer versions (i.e., GPT-4) produce 5× semantically richer, more emotionally polarized perceptions with fewer negative associations compared to older versions and N=159 high-school students. These findings suggest that advances in the architecture of LLMs may lead to increasingly less biased models that could even perhaps someday aid in reducing harmful stereotypes in society rather than perpetuating them.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/bdcc7030124

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abramski, K., Citraro, S., Lombardi, L., Rossetti, G., & Stella, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Pisa (IT)
  • Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione "Alessandro Faedo" (IT)
  • University of Trento (IT)
Corresponding author
Stella, Massimo
Venue
Big Data and Cognitive Computing
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-06-27
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
124
ISSN
2504-2289 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4382583857
Cited by
81
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 6
FWCI
20.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Big Data and Cognitive Computing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial research information system (University of Pisa) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ISTI Open Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
large language models, algorithmic bias, mathematics anxiety, GPT-3, GPT-3.5, GPT-4, high school students, affective bias, semantic bias, language model architecture

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review