Perils and opportunities in using large language models in psychological research.

IF 2.2 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES PNAS nexus Pub Date : 2024-07-16 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae245
Suhaib Abdurahman, Mohammad Atari, Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi, Mona J Xue, Jackson Trager, Peter S Park, Preni Golazizian, Ali Omrani, Morteza Dehghani
{"title":"Perils and opportunities in using large language models in psychological research.","authors":"Suhaib Abdurahman, Mohammad Atari, Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi, Mona J Xue, Jackson Trager, Peter S Park, Preni Golazizian, Ali Omrani, Morteza Dehghani","doi":"10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has sparked considerable interest in their potential application in psychological research, mainly as a model of the human psyche or as a general text-analysis tool. However, the trend of using LLMs without sufficient attention to their limitations and risks, which we rhetorically refer to as \"GPTology\", can be detrimental given the easy access to models such as ChatGPT. Beyond existing general guidelines, we investigate the current limitations, ethical implications, and potential of LLMs specifically for psychological research, and show their concrete impact in various empirical studies. Our results highlight the importance of recognizing global psychological diversity, cautioning against treating LLMs (especially in zero-shot settings) as universal solutions for text analysis, and developing transparent, open methods to address LLMs' opaque nature for reliable, reproducible, and robust inference from AI-generated data. Acknowledging LLMs' utility for task automation, such as text annotation, or to expand our understanding of human psychology, we argue for diversifying human samples and expanding psychology's methodological toolbox to promote an inclusive, generalizable science, countering homogenization, and over-reliance on LLMs.</p>","PeriodicalId":74468,"journal":{"name":"PNAS nexus","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11249969/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PNAS nexus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae245","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has sparked considerable interest in their potential application in psychological research, mainly as a model of the human psyche or as a general text-analysis tool. However, the trend of using LLMs without sufficient attention to their limitations and risks, which we rhetorically refer to as "GPTology", can be detrimental given the easy access to models such as ChatGPT. Beyond existing general guidelines, we investigate the current limitations, ethical implications, and potential of LLMs specifically for psychological research, and show their concrete impact in various empirical studies. Our results highlight the importance of recognizing global psychological diversity, cautioning against treating LLMs (especially in zero-shot settings) as universal solutions for text analysis, and developing transparent, open methods to address LLMs' opaque nature for reliable, reproducible, and robust inference from AI-generated data. Acknowledging LLMs' utility for task automation, such as text annotation, or to expand our understanding of human psychology, we argue for diversifying human samples and expanding psychology's methodological toolbox to promote an inclusive, generalizable science, countering homogenization, and over-reliance on LLMs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在心理学研究中使用大型语言模型的危险与机遇。
大型语言模型(LLM)的出现引发了人们对其在心理学研究中潜在应用的极大兴趣,主要是作为人类心理模型或一般文本分析工具。然而,由于像 ChatGPT 这样的模型很容易获得,在使用 LLM 时没有充分注意其局限性和风险的趋势(我们称之为 "GPT 学")可能是有害的。除了现有的一般指导原则,我们还调查了 LLMs 目前的局限性、伦理影响以及专门用于心理学研究的潜力,并在各种实证研究中展示了它们的具体影响。我们的研究结果强调了认识全球心理学多样性的重要性,告诫人们不要将 LLMs(尤其是在零镜头设置中)视为文本分析的通用解决方案,并开发透明、开放的方法来解决 LLMs 的不透明性问题,以便从人工智能生成的数据中进行可靠、可重现和稳健的推断。我们认识到 LLMs 在任务自动化(如文本注释)或扩展我们对人类心理学的理解方面的实用性,因此我们主张实现人类样本的多样化,并扩展心理学的方法论工具箱,以促进具有包容性、可推广性的科学,反对同质化和对 LLMs 的过度依赖。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pollen foraging mediates exposure to dichotomous stressor syndromes in honey bees. Affective polarization is uniformly distributed across American States. Attraction to politically extreme users on social media. Critical thinking and misinformation vulnerability: experimental evidence from Colombia. Descriptive norms can "backfire" in hyper-polarized contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1