Interview-Informed Generative Agents for Product Discovery: A Validation Study

Machine learning can predict human behavior well when substantial structured data are available for well-defined outcomes. Such models are typically outcome-specific, however, requiring training data for each target outcome, limiting their applicability to new domains. We test whether large language models (LLMs) can relax these requirements by using self-report data to build attitudinal and behavioral simulations, or "generative agents," that can predict responses across outcomes without outcome-specific training data. Using data from a diverse national sample of 1,052 Americans, we built agents from (i) two-hour, semi-structured interviews elicited using the American Voices Project interview schedule, (ii) structured surveys including General Social Survey items and the Big Five personality inventory, or (iii) both sources combined. On held-out General Social Survey items, interview-only, survey-only, and combined agents achieved accuracies equal to 83%, 82%, and 86% of participants' own two-week test-retest consistency benchmark, respectively, compared with 74% for demographics-only agents. Combining interviews and surveys produced the highest accuracy, though gains over either source alone were modest, suggesting that predictive benefits from data begin to asymptote once the model has observed sufficient evidence within a domain. We find that these agents also predict personality traits, economic-game behavior, and experimental responses, while reducing accuracy disparities across racial and ideological groups relative to demographics-only agents. Together, these results show that LLM agents grounded in qualitative or quantitative self-reports can support general-purpose simulation of individuals across outcomes, without requiring task-specific training data.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are increasingly used as proxies for human participants in social science research, yet it remains unclear whether they can faithfully simulate diverse and conflicting human value systems. We present a World Values Survey (WVS)-grounded simulation framework where culturally diverse agents with different communication styles engage in longitudinal, value-laden discussions. Across approximately 4,000 conversations involving 1,200 personas, 15 topics, and three models (GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5-Flash, and Gemma-4-E4B), we evaluate value faithfulness, value drift, and conversational realism. We find that more than 50% of personas fail to express their assigned WVS profiles from the outset, while 2-7% drift after repeated conversations. Ablations removing demographic details improve faithfulness for some models but do not change the broader trend: simulated value distributions still systematically deviate from the assigned WVS profiles. Compared to human discussions, simulated dialogues show a different trade-off between stylistic consistency and semantic diversity, often producing content-wise varied but stylistically repetitive exchanges. These findings suggest that current LLM agents can generate plausible conversations, but remain limited proxies for representing and preserving diverse human value profiles over time.

Platform policies are increasingly tested on artificial users, making agent fidelity important. Yet convincing fake profiles could also manipulate perceived public opinion before elections. Validation has concentrated on agreement with human behaviour and has paid little attention to whether an agent behaves in line with the profile it was given. The present study profiled eight Serbian participants through a questionnaire, a deep interview, and a written self-presentation, recorded their reactions to sixty-eight social media posts, and asked four language models to predict those reactions under five prompt conditions varying profile content and instruction style. Attitudinal content improved prediction over demographic backstories by a wide margin. Agents matched their stated profiles more closely than participants matched their own survey answers, and consistency proved unrelated to fidelity once profile information was present. Instructing models to respond intuitively and immediately rather than analytically gave the highest fidelity of any condition and cut the compression of individual differences from seven times the human level to three. The advantage held on posts about topics the questionnaire never raised, where that condition reached the highest fidelity of any setup and beat a crowd baseline by a wide margin, which suggests that agents prompted this way could serve as general-purpose simulated users rather than specialists on the topics they were profiled for. Results may bear implications for the development of language models, because intuition-based setups appear better suited to some tasks than reasoning-based ones.