Multi-agent systems utilizing large language models often assign authoritative roles to improve performance, yet the impact of authority bias on agent interactions remains underexplored. We present the first systematic analysis of role-based authority bias in free-form multi-agent evaluation using ChatEval. Applying French and Raven’s power-based theory, we classify authoritative roles into legitimate, referent, and expert types and analyze their influence across 12-turn conversations. Experiments with GPT-4o and DeepSeek R1 reveal that Expert and Referent power roles exert stronger influence than Legitimate power roles. Crucially, authority bias emerges not through active conformity by general agents, but through authoritative roles consistently maintaining their positions while general agents demonstrate flexibility. Furthermore, authority influence requires clear position statements, as neutral responses fail to generate bias. These findings provide key insights for designing multi-agent frameworks with asymmetric interaction patterns.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been recently adopted in interactive systems requiring communication. As the false belief in a model can harm the usability of such systems, LLMs should not have cognitive biases that humans have. Psychologists especially focus on the False Consensus Effect (FCE), a cognitive bias where individuals overestimate the extent to which others share their beliefs or behaviors, because FCE can distract smooth communication by posing false beliefs. However, previous studies have less examined FCE in LLMs thoroughly, which needs more consideration of confounding biases, general situations, and prompt changes. Therefore, in this paper, we conduct two studies to examine the FCE phenomenon in LLMs. In Study 1, we investigate whether LLMs have FCE. In Study 2, we explore how various prompting styles affect the demonstration of FCE. As a result of these studies, we identified that popular LLMs have FCE. Also, the result specifies the conditions when FCE becomes more or less prevalent compared to normal usage.

We introduce VoiceBBQ, a spoken extension of the BBQ (Bias Benchmark for Question answering) - a dataset that measures social bias by presenting ambiguous or disambiguated contexts followed by questions that may elicit stereotypical responses. Due to the nature of speech modality, social bias in Spoken Language Models (SLMs) can emerge from two distinct sources: 1) content aspect and 2) acoustic aspect. The dataset converts every BBQ context into controlled voice conditions, enabling per-axis accuracy, bias, and consistency scores that remain comparable to the original text benchmark. Using VoiceBBQ, we evaluate two SLMs—LLaMA-Omni and Qwen2-Audio—and observe architectural contrasts: LLaMA-Omni retains strong acoustic sensitivity, amplifying gender and accent bias, whereas Qwen2-Audio substantially dampens these cues while preserving content fidelity. VoiceBBQ thus provides a compact, drop-in testbed for jointly diagnosing content and acoustic bias across spoken language models.