From Self to Other: Evaluating Demographic Perspective-Taking in LLM Hate Speech Annotation

Hate speech annotation is costly, subjective, and prone to annotator disagreement, making large-scale dataset construction challenging. We systematically analyze how well large language models (LLMs) align with human judgments across ten theoretically grounded subjective attributes, such as dehumanization, violence, and sentiment, evaluating both small and large variants of Llama 3.1 and Qwen 2.5. Our analysis reveals a consistent split across all models: behaviorally explicit dimensions (insult, humiliate, attack-defend) correlate strongly with human annotations, while evaluative dimensions (respect, sentiment, hate speech) are systematically inverted. Demographic persona conditioning reduces model confidence without improving alignment. Building on these insights, we propose combining attribute-level LLM predictions via a confidence-weighted Ridge regression to reconstruct continuous hate speech scores from the Measuring Hate Speech corpus, achieving $R^2$ of up to 0.71 and outperforming direct prompting baselines, demonstrating that structured attribute decomposition recovers a richer and more human-aligned signal than end-to-end label prediction alone.

Demographic information is often used to model annotator perspectives in subjective tasks such as hate speech detection, but its benefit is inconsistent: it improves performance in some settings and behaves as noise in others. This paper asks when demographic features help. We analyze demographic gain as a function of both data split properties and modeling frameworks. For data splits, we measure annotator disagreement, namely how often annotators assign different labels to the same example, along with training size and train-test demographic coverage. We find that demographic gains concentrate in regimes with low training disagreement, high test disagreement, fine-grained ambiguity measurement, sufficient training data, and greater demographic overlap. Motivated by these regimes, we introduce a gated demographic residual model that treats demographics as a selective adjustment to text-only predictions. Experiments on MHS and POPQUORN show that this design is effective, especially on high disagreement or low confidence examples. Overall, our results suggest that demographics should not be assumed useful by default; their value depends jointly on the data regime and the modeling framework.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for subjective tasks, where annotators disagree and the relevant question is not only how accurate a judge is, but whose judgments it reproduces. Sociodemographic prompting conditions the judge on an annotator's demographic profile to align its judgments with the corresponding group's. We test whether this alignment emerges distributionally, comparing the predicted label distributions of 23 open-weight LLMs on three subjective tasks against those of real annotator groups, under three conditions: no demographic information, single-attribute profiles, and intersectional profiles over gender, age, race, and education. Three findings emerge. First, a judge prompted with no demographics is not perspective-neutral: models best reproduce the judgments of White, college-educated annotators. Second, demographic conditioning is asymmetric: it moves the judge toward majority groups and away from minority groups, most strongly on offensiveness, where intersectional profiles amplify the harm. Third, by comparing base and instruct models we identify instruction-tuning as a possible source of the asymmetry. Demographic conditioning should therefore be used with caution to estimate group judgments: conditioning moves predictions away from the reference distributions of the minority groups the method is often invoked to serve.