From Individuals to Interactions: Benchmarking Gender Bias in Multimodal Large Language Models from the Lens of Social Relationship

Understanding gender biases in large language models (LLMs) is increasingly important as these systems become embedded in decision-support tools with real consequences. Prior research has focused only on a small set of models, leaving open the extent to which gender biases are common and heterogeneous across LLMs. We address this gap across ten models released between April 2025 and June 2026, spanning nine vendors, using two paradigms: gender attribution to stereotyped phrases (Study 1) and moral judgment of abuse or torture against a woman or a man to prevent a catastrophic outcome (Study 2). In Study 1, two of ten models attributed masculine-stereotyped phrases to female writers more often than the reverse, while three models showed the opposite pattern. In Study 2, several models converged on a male-disadvantaging asymmetry that was directionally consistent with a documented human tendency to protect female targets from harm, though the specific conditions under which this asymmetry emerged varied by model; three other models, by contrast, showed no variation across conditions. These results indicate that gender-related biases are common in LLMs. Their direction and magnitude, however, are highly heterogeneous, to the point that some models behave in diametrically opposite ways to others. Bias auditing should therefore be treated as an ongoing, multi-vendor process, rather than a one-time assessment.

Humans possess an innate ability to understand fine-grained interpersonal relationships, which is central to everyday social interactions. Although such reasoning is inherently multimodal, it remains largely unexplored by existing multimodal large language models (MLLMs). To address this gap, we introduce PIVOTS, the first benchmark built from Social-IQ 2.0 and YouTube data to evaluate MLLMs' ability to predict bidirectional interpersonal relationship dimensions grounded in established psychology research. In addition, PIVOTS includes auxiliary tasks that assess models' ability to identify and leverage the critical visual cues underlying such predictions. We evaluate both proprietary and open-source MLLMs and conduct detailed ablation studies to analyze the effects of visual modalities and explicit social role information in conversational utterances. We further examine how joint and pairwise prediction settings benefit MLLMs in scoring bidirectional PIVOTS dimensions. Project page: https://ciossayin.github.io/pivots-bench/

During training, Large Language Models (LLMs) learn social regularities that can lead to gender bias in downstream applications. Most mitigation efforts focus on reducing bias in generated outputs, typically evaluated on structured benchmarks, which raises two concerns: output-level evaluation does not reveal whether alignment modifies the model's underlying representations, and structured benchmarks may not reflect realistic usage scenarios. We propose a unified framework to jointly analyze intrinsic and extrinsic gender bias in LLMs using identical neutral prompts, enabling direct comparison between gender-related information encoded in internal representations and bias expressed in generated outputs. Contrary to prior work reporting weak or inconsistent correlations, we find a consistent association between latent gender information and expressed bias when measured under the unified protocol. We further examine the effect of alignment through supervised fine-tuning aimed at reducing gender bias. Our results suggest that while the latter indeed reduces expressed bias, measurable gender-related associations are still present in internal representations, and can be reactivated under adversarial prompting. Finally, we consider two realistic settings and show that debiasing effects observed on structured benchmarks do not necessarily generalize, e.g., to the case of story generation.