Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in high-stakes domains, yet how they reason about socially-sensitive decisions still remain underexplored. We present a large-scale audit of LLMs’ treatment of socioeconomic status (SES) in college admissions decisions using a novel dual-process framework inspired by cognitive science. Leveraging a synthetic dataset of 30,000 applicant profiles grounded in real-world correlations, we prompt 4 open-source LLMs (Qwen 2, Mistral v0.3, Gemma 2, Llama 3.1) under 2 modes: a fast, decision-only setup (System 1) and a slower, explanation-based setup (System 2). Results from 5 million prompts reveals that LLMs consistently favor low-SES applicants—even when controlling for academic performance—and that System 2 amplifies this tendency by explicitly invoking SES as compensatory justification, highlighting both their potential and volatility as decision-makers. We then propose DPAF, a dual-process audit framework to probe LLMs’ reasoning behaviors in sensitive applications.

Social science research has shown that candidates with names indicative of certain races or genders often face discrimination in employment practices. Similarly, Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated racial and gender biases in various applications. In this study, we utilize GPT-3.5-Turbo and Llama 3-70B-Instruct to simulate hiring decisions and salary recommendations for candidates with 320 first names that strongly signal their race and gender, across over 750,000 prompts. Our empirical results indicate a preference among these models for hiring candidates with White female-sounding names over other demographic groups across 40 occupations. Additionally, even among candidates with identical qualifications, salary recommendations vary by as much as 5% between different subgroups. A comparison with real-world labor data reveals inconsistent alignment with U.S. labor market characteristics, underscoring the necessity of risk investigation of LLM-powered systems.