Implicit Personality Representations in Humans and LLMs

Human personality theories characterize traits not as isolated attributes captured by a single score, but as stable individual tendencies expressed through the interplay among persons, situations, and behaviors. Existing studies of personality-related behavior in LLMs have primarily focused on outputs elicited under personality conditioning, characterizing observable trait-related expressions while lacking mechanistic evidence for the existence of internal personality-related representations, their cross-situational expression, and how these representations shape specific behaviors. Building on Funder's personality triad framework, we adapt its three components for LLM analysis: Person as personality-related internal representations, Situation as contexts that afford trait-relevant responses, and Behavior as response patterns on broader social tasks. We introduce a framework for discovering, controlling, and validating trait-like representations in LLMs. First, using contrastive behavior pairs grounded in shared situations, we identify sparse internal features associated with opposing poles of personality traits through SAE decomposition. We validate their trait relevance through effects on behavior to situation, token-level activation patterns, and robustness to paraphrasing. Second, feature-level interventions induce bidirectional trait-related shifts across a separate, diverse set of situations while preserving response validity, demonstrating consistent expression across contexts. Third, applying the same interventions to social intelligence tasks reveals behavioral changes with benefit-tradeoff patterns consistent with findings from human personality research, providing behavioral-level validation beyond personality scores. Our findings provide evidence that LLMs contain controllable trait-like representations linking internal states, situational expression, and behavioral outcomes.

Large language models (LLMs) give stable answers to personality questionnaires, yet these self-reports fail to predict how the models behave. Is this gap an artifact of forcing human trait categories onto LLMs, or something deeper about LLM self-report? To find out, we built the first psychometric instrument whose dimensions are derived from LLM behavior rather than human psychology. Administering 300 items (240 Likert + 60 scenario) to 25 LLMs across 17 model families, 30 times each, exploratory factor analysis revealed five reliable, replicable factors: Responsiveness, Deference, Boldness, Guardedness, and Verbosity (all Tucker $φ\geq .957$, all $α\geq .930$). We collected 2,500 open-ended samples and had them rated by 151 humans and a three-judge LLM ensemble. Humans and judges agreed ($\bar{r} = .51$), but self-report predicted neither the ratings nor objective text measures computed from them: the gap persists even for constructs native to LLMs, where a human-mismatch explanation no longer applies. The exception is Verbosity, whose self-report reaches 74% of the criterion-reliability ceiling against human ratings, but does not track raw output length. On Responsiveness, self-report tracked LLM judges ($r = .53$) but not humans ($r = .04$), even though humans and judges otherwise agreed ($r = .59$). This pattern formally rejects any single latent construct driving all three measurements ($p = .007$). Self-report items and LLM judges share a source of variance that human observers do not, and controlling for measurable surface features (length, formatting, enthusiasm markers) does not remove it. This confound is invisible to the within-ensemble reliability checks used to validate LLM judges, and it poses a concrete risk for the LLM-as-judge pipelines now central to model evaluation. We release the instrument as a diagnostic probe for alignment-shaped self-description.

We examine whether human psychometric questionnaires can serve as reliable tools for characterizing and predicting LLM behavior in everyday user interactions. We analyze eight open-source LLMs by comparing their value and personality profiles derived from two different methods: Likert self-reports on established questionnaires (PVQ-40/21 and BFI-44/10) and generation probabilities over value-laden responses to everyday user queries. The two profiles diverge substantially. Within-construct item consistency, often cited as evidence of stable LLM dispositions, disappears in generation probabilities. We find that established questionnaire items contain explicit lexical cues that allow models to recognize the target construct and respond in alignment-consistent, socially desirable ways, whereas realistic user queries contain far less recognizable cues. In addition, demographic persona prompts shift models' responses to human questionnaires in ways consistent with real human patterns, but no such shifts appear in the generation setting, highlighting that human questionnaires overestimate LLMs' ability to faithfully reproduce expected psychological traits when role-playing demographic personas. Overall, our study indicates that questionnaire scores alone should not be treated as evidence of LLMs' response tendencies in realistic user interactions, and supports generation-probability profiling with ecologically valid items as a complementary behavioral measure.