@inproceedings{alessa-etal-2025-quantifying,
    title = "Quantifying Cognitive Bias Induction in {LLM}-Generated Content",
    author = "Alessa, Abeer  and
      Somane, Param  and
      Lakshminarasimhan, Akshaya Thenkarai  and
      Skirzynski, Julian  and
      McAuley, Julian  and
      Echterhoff, Jessica Maria",
    editor = "Inui, Kentaro  and
      Sakti, Sakriani  and
      Wang, Haofen  and
      Wong, Derek F.  and
      Bhattacharyya, Pushpak  and
      Banerjee, Biplab  and
      Ekbal, Asif  and
      Chakraborty, Tanmoy  and
      Singh, Dhirendra Pratap",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 4th Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
    month = dec,
    year = "2025",
    address = "Mumbai, India",
    publisher = "The Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing and The Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/ingest-ijcnlp-aacl/2025.ijcnlp-long.155/",
    pages = "2890--2910",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-298-5",
    abstract = "Large language models (LLMs) are integrated into applications like shopping reviews, summarization, or medical diagnosis support, where their use affects human decisions. We investigate the extent to which LLMs expose users to biased content and demonstrate its effect on human decision-making. We assess five LLM families in summarization and news fact-checking tasks, evaluating the consistency of LLMs with their context and their tendency to hallucinate on a new self-updating dataset. Our findings show that LLMs expose users to content that changes the context{'}s sentiment in 26.42{\%} of cases (framing bias), hallucinate on 60.33{\%} of post-knowledge-cutoff questions, and highlight context from earlier parts of the prompt (primacy bias) in 10.12{\%} of cases, averaged across all tested models. We further find that humans are 32{\%} more likely to purchase the same product after reading a summary of the review generated by an LLM rather than the original review. To address these issues, we evaluate 18 mitigation methods across three LLM families and find the effectiveness of targeted interventions."
}