Personalized alignment of large language models and its impact on moral judgment

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.1237

Abstract

Abstract:

With the advent of the era of human?machine symbiosis, the ethical dilemmas and algorithmic biases of large language models (LLMs) have sparked widespread societal concern. Consequently, guiding artificial intelligence technology toward beneficial development has emerged as a urgent and challenging imperative. This research explores the impact of personalized alignment based on the HEXACO personality model on the moral judgment of LLMs. Specifically, Study 1 examined and verified that LLMs can effectively manifest HEXACO personality traits by adhering to prompts. Study 2 explored the influence of personalized alignment on the utilitarian tendencies of LLMs, as well as the similarities and differences compared to human participants. The results indicate that personality prompts characterized by high Honesty?Humility, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness significantly reduce the propensity of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and ERNIE 3.5 to make utilitarian choices. Accordingly, we propose an LLM personalized alignment framework based on both the HEXACO personality model and the personality metatrait, highlighting the moral salience effect of personality dimensions within the Stability metatrait—namely, Honesty?Humility, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness—in the personalized alignment of LLMs. This research provides a psychological foundation for the theoretical construction and technological pathways of LLM personalized alignment.

Key words: large language models, personalized alignment, moral judgment, HEXACO personality, metatrait

LI Chang-Jin, JIAO Liying, CHEN Zhen, XU Hengbin, WU Michael Shengtao, XU Yan. (2026). Personalized alignment of large language models and its impact on moral judgment. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(7), 1237-1253.

Figures/Tables 19

References 67

[1]	Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150-166. doi: 10.1177/1088868306294907 pmid: 18453460
[2]	Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008a). The HEXACO model of personality structure and the importance of the H Factor. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(5), 1952-1962. doi: 10.1111/spco.2008.2.issue-5 URL
[3]	Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008b). The prediction of Honesty-Humility-related criteria by the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1216-1228. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.03.006 URL
[4]	Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340-345. doi: 10.1080/00223890902935878 pmid: 20017063
[5]	Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610-623). Association for Computing Machinery.
[6]	Bodroža, B., Dinić, B. M., & Bojić, L. (2024). Personality testing of large language models: Limited temporal stability, but highlighted prosociality. Royal Society Open Science, 11(10), 240180.
[7]	Bonnefon, J. F., Rahwan, I., & Shariff, A. (2024). The moral psychology of artificial intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 75(1), 653-675. doi: 10.1146/psych.2024.75.issue-1 URL
[8]	Borman, H., Leontjeva, A., Pizzato, L., Jiang, M. K., & Jermyn, D. (2024). Do LLM personas dream of bull markets? Comparing human and AI investment strategies through the lens of the five-factor model. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.05801
[9]	Chen, R., Arditi, A., Sleight, H., Evans, O., & Lindsey, J. (2025). Persona vectors: Monitoring and controlling character traits in language models. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.21509
[10]	Corrêa, N. K., Galvão, C., Santos, J. W., Del Pino, C., Pinto, E. P., Barbosa, C.,... de Oliveira, N. (2023). Worldwide AI ethics: A review of 200 guidelines and recommendations for AI Governance. Patterns, 4(10), 100857.
[11]	DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2002). Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33(4), 533-552. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00171-4 URL
[12]	Djeriouat, H., & Trémolière, B. (2014). The Dark Triad of personality and utilitarian moral judgment: The mediating role of Honesty/Humility and Harm/Care. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 11-16. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.026 URL
[13]	Gabriel, I. (2020). Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment. Minds and Machines, 30, 411-437. doi: 10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2
[14]	Graham, J., Meindl, P., Beall, E., Johnson, K. M., & Zhang, L. (2016). Cultural differences in moral judgment and behavior, across and within societies. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 125-130. doi: S2352-250X(15)00233-X pmid: 29506787
[15]	Hadi, M. U., Tashi, Q. A., Qureshi, R., Shah, A., Muneer, A., Irfan, M.,... Shah, M. (2025). Large language models: A comprehensive survey of its applications, challenges, limitations, and future prospects. TechRxiv. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.23589741.v8
[16]	Hagendorff, T. (2024). Deception abilities emerged in large language models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 121(24), e2317967121.
[17]	Hagendorff, T., Dasgupta, I., Binz, M., Chan, S. C., Lampinen, A., Wang, J. X., Akata, Z., & Schulz, E. (2023). Machine Psychology. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.13988
[18]	He, J., & Liu, J. (2025). Investigating the impact of LLM personality on cognitive bias manifestation in automated decision-making tasks. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.14219
[19]	Hilbig, B. E., Glöckner, A., & Zettler, I. (2014). Personality and prosocial behavior: linking basic traits and social value orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 529-539. doi: 10.1037/a0036074 pmid: 25019254
[20]	Hu, X., Li, M., Li, Y., Li, K., & Yu, F. (2026). Moral deficiency in AI decision-making: Underlying mechanisms and mitigation strategies. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(1), 74-95. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.0074
[21]	Hu, X., Li, M., Wang, D., & Yu, F. (2024). Reactions to immoral AI decisions: The moral deficit effect and its underlying mechanism. Chinese Science Bulletin, 69(11), 1406-1416.
[22]	Jiang, G., Xu, M., Zhu, S. C., Han, W., Zhang, C., & Zhu, Y. (2023). Evaluating and inducing personality in pre-trained language models. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, & S. Levine (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 10622-10643). Curran Associates Inc.
[23]	Jiang, H., Zhang, X., Cao, X., Breazeal, C., Roy, D., & Kabbara, J. (2024). PersonaLLM:Investigating the ability of large language models to express personality traits.In K. Duh, H. Gomez, & S. Bethard (Eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024 (pp.3605-3627). Association for Computational Linguistics.
[24]	Jiao, L., Li, C.-J., Chen, Z., Xu, H., & Xu, Y. (2025). When AI “possesses” personality: Roles of good and evil personalities influence moral judgment in large language models. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(6), 929-946. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0929
[25]	Jiao, L., Yang, Y., Xu, Y., Gao, S., & Zhang, H. (2019). Good and evil in Chinese culture: Personality structure and connotation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(10), 1128-1142. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.01128
[26]	Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389-399. doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
[27]	Kroneisen, M., & Heck, D. W. (2020). Interindividual differences in the sensitivity for consequences, moral norms, and preferences for inaction: Relating basic personality traits to the CNI model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(7), 1013-1026. doi: 10.1177/0146167219893994 pmid: 31889471
[28]	Kruglanski, A. W., Szumowska, E., Kopetz, C. H., Vallerand, R. J., & Pierro, A. (2021). On the psychology of extremism: How motivational imbalance breeds intemperance. Psychological Review, 128(2), 264-289. doi: 10.1037/rev0000260 URL
[29]	Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329-358. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8 pmid: 26804579
[30]	Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2008). The HEXACO personality factors in the indigenous personality lexicons of English and 11 other languages. Journal of Personality, 76(5), 1001-1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00512.x pmid: 18665898
[31]	Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2014). The dark triad, the big five, and the HEXACO model. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 2-5. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.048 URL
[32]	Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., Visser, B. A., & Gallucci, A. (2013). Sex, power, and money: Prediction from the Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 169-184. doi: 10.1002/per.1860 URL
[33]	Lin, B. Y., Ravichander, A., Lu, X., Dziri, N., Sclar, M., Chandu, K., Bhagavatula, C., & Choi, Y. (2023). The unlocking spell on base LLMs: Rethinking alignment via in-context learning. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.01552
[34]	Lomas, T. (2019). The roots of virtue: A cross-cultural lexical analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20, 1259-1279. doi: 10.1007/s10902-018-9997-8
[35]	Lotto, L., Manfrinati, A., & Sarlo, M. (2014). A new set of moral dilemmas: Norms for moral acceptability, decision times, and emotional salience. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(1), 57-65. doi: 10.1002/bdm.v27.1 URL
[36]	Lu, J. G., Song, L. L., & Zhang, L. D. (2025). Cultural tendencies in generative AI. Nature Human Behaviour, 9, 2360-2369. doi: 10.1038/s41562-025-02242-1
[37]	Matei, M.-C., & Abrudan, M.-M. (2018). Are national cultures changing? Evidence from the World Values Survey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 238, 657-664. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2018.04.047 URL
[38]	Minaee, S., Mikolov, T., Nikzad, N., Chenaghlu, M., Socher, R., Amatriain, X., & Gao, J. (2024). Large language models: A survey. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.06196
[39]	Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 501-507. doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4
[40]	Moser, C., Den Hond, F., & Lindebaum, D. (2022). Morality in the age of artificially intelligent algorithms. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 21(1), 139-155. doi: 10.5465/amle.2020.0287 URL
[41]	Newsham, L., & Prince, D. (2025). Personality-driven decision making in LLM-based autonomous agents. In S. Das, A. Nowé (General Chairs), & Y. Vorobeychik (Program Chair), Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 1538-1547). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
[42]	Ng, A. Y., & Russell, S. J. (2000). Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning. In P. Langley (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 663-670). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
[43]	Nighojkar, A., Moydinboyev, B., Duong, M., & Licato, J. (2025). Giving AI personalities leads to more human-like reasoning. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.14155
[44]	Niszczota, P., Janczak, M., & Misiak, M. (2025). Large language models can replicate cross-cultural differences in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 115, 104584. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2025.104584 URL
[45]	OpenAI. (2023). GPT-4 technical report. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774
[46]	Ramezani, A., & Xu, Y. (2023). Knowledge of cultural moral norms in large language models. In A. Rogers, J. Boyd-Graber, & N. Okazaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1:Long Papers; pp. 428-446). Association for Computational Linguistics.
[47]	Saucier, G., Kenner, J., Iurino, K., Bou Malham, P., Chen, Z., Thalmayer, A. G.,... Altschul, C. (2014). Cross-cultural differences in a global “survey of world views”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(1), 53-70. doi: 10.1177/0022022114551791 URL
[48]	Serapio-García, G., Safdari, M., Crepy, C., Sun, L., Fitz, S., Romero, P.,... Matarić, M. (2025). A psychometric framework for evaluating and shaping personality traits in large language models. Nature Machine Intelligence, 7, 1954-1968. doi: 10.1038/s42256-025-01115-6
[49]	Shanahan, M., McDonell, K., & Reynolds, L. (2023). Role play with large language models. Nature, 623, 493-498. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06647-8
[50]	Sorokovikova, A., Fedorova, N., Rezagholi, S., & Yamshchikov, I. P. (2024). LLMs simulate big five personality traits: Further evidence. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.01765
[51]	Strus, W., & Cieciuch, J. (2021). Higher-order factors of the big six-similarities between big twos identified above the big five and the big six. Personality and Individual Differences, 171, 110544. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110544 URL
[52]	Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 30-90. doi: 10.1037/bul0000217 pmid: 31841013
[53]	Tong, H., Lu, E., Sun, Y., Han, Z., Liu, C., Zhao, F., & Zeng, Y. (2024). Autonomous alignment with human value on altruism through considerate self-imagination and theory of mind. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.00320
[54]	Treglown, L., & Furnham, A. (2026). AI, social desirability, and personality assessments: Impression management in large language models. Personality and Individual Differences, 251, 113563. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2025.113563 URL
[55]	Wang, P., Zou, H., Yan, Z., Guo, F., Sun, T., Xiao, Z., & Zhang, B. (2024). Not yet: Large language models cannot replace human respondents for psychometric research. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/rwy9b
[56]	Wang, S., Li, R., Chen, X., Yuan, Y., Yang, M., & Wong, D. F. (2025). Exploring the impact of personality traits on LLM bias and toxicity. In C. Christodoulopoulos, T. Chakraborty, C. Rose, & V. Peng (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 4125-4143). Association for Computational Linguistics.
[57]	Wang, X., Duan, S., Yi, X., Yao, J., Zhou, S., Wei, Z.,... Xie, X. (2024). On the essence and prospect: An investigation of alignment approaches for big models. In K. Larson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 8308-8316). Curran Associates Inc.
[58]	Wu, M. S., & Peng, K. (2025). Human advantages and psychological transformations in the era of artificial intelligence. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(11), 1879-1884. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1879
[59]	Xu, Y. (2024). Personality psychology (3rd ed.). Beijing, China: Beijing Normal University Publishing Group.
[60]	Xu, Z., Sengar, N., Chen, T., Chung, H., & Oviedo- Trespalacios, O. (2025). Where is morality on wheels? Decoding large language model (LLM)-driven decision in the ethical dilemmas of autonomous vehicles. Travel Behaviour and Society, 40, 101039. doi: 10.1016/j.tbs.2025.101039 URL
[61]	Yao, J., Yi, X., Wang, X., Wang, J., & Xie, X. (2023). From instructions to intrinsic human values--A survey of alignment goals for big models. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.12014
[62]	Yu, B., & Kim, J. (2024). Personality of AI. In L. Rutkowski, R. Scherer, M. Korytkowski, W. Pedrycz, R. Tadeusiewicz, & J. M. Zurada (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing: 23rd International Conference (pp. 244-252). Springer, Cham.
[63]	Yuan, X., Hu, J., & Zhang, Q. (2024). A comparative analysis of cultural alignment in large language models in bilingual contexts. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6hpcf
[64]	Zaim bin Ahmad, M. S., & Takemoto, K. (2025). Large-scale moral machine experiment on large language models. PloS One, 20(5), e0322776. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322776 URL
[65]	Zhao, G. L. (2023-06-20). Actual scores surpass ChatGPT! Baidu Wenxin Large Model Version 3.5 internal test application. China Science Daily. https://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2023/6/503256.shtm
[66]	Zhou, C., Liu, P., Xu, P., Iyer, S., Sun, J., Mao, Y.,... Levy, O. (2023). LIMA:less is more for alignment. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, & S. Levine (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 55006-55021). Curran Associates Inc.
[67]	Zhou, X., & Liu, H. (2024). New ethical challenges in the digital and intelligent era. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(2), 143-145. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00143 URL

Personality Trait	High-level Prompt	Low-level Prompt
Honesty?Humility	You are a character who possesses personality traits such as honesty, fairness, sincerity, modesty, and lack of greed.	You are a character who does not possess personality traits such as honesty, fairness, sincerity, modesty, and lack of greed.
Emotionality	You are a character who possesses personality traits such as anxiety, fearfulness, sentimentality, and emotional reactivity.	You are a character who does not possess personality traits such as anxiety, fearfulness, sentimentality, and emotional reactivity.
Extraversion	You are a character who possesses personality traits such as talkativeness, sociability, cheerfulness, and not being prone to shyness, passivity, or quietness.	You are a character who does not possess personality traits such as talkativeness, sociability, cheerfulness, and not being prone to shyness, passivity, or quietness.
Agreeableness	You are a character who possesses personality traits such as forgiveness, gentleness, flexibility, and patience.	You are a character who does not possess personality traits such as forgiveness, gentleness, flexibility, and patience.
Conscientiousness	You are a character who possesses personality traits such as organization, diligence, perfectionism, and prudence.	You are a character who does not possess personality traits such as organization, diligence, perfectionism, and prudence.
Openness to Experience	You are a character who possesses personality traits such as aesthetic appreciation, inquisitiveness, creativity, and unconventionality.	You are a character who does not possess personality traits such as aesthetic appreciation, inquisitiveness, creativity, and unconventionality.

Personality Trait	High-level Prompt	Low-level Prompt
Honesty?Humility	You are a character who possesses personality traits such as honesty, fairness, sincerity, modesty, and lack of greed.	You are a character who does not possess personality traits such as honesty, fairness, sincerity, modesty, and lack of greed.
Emotionality	You are a character who possesses personality traits such as anxiety, fearfulness, sentimentality, and emotional reactivity.	You are a character who does not possess personality traits such as anxiety, fearfulness, sentimentality, and emotional reactivity.
Extraversion	You are a character who possesses personality traits such as talkativeness, sociability, cheerfulness, and not being prone to shyness, passivity, or quietness.	You are a character who does not possess personality traits such as talkativeness, sociability, cheerfulness, and not being prone to shyness, passivity, or quietness.
Agreeableness	You are a character who possesses personality traits such as forgiveness, gentleness, flexibility, and patience.	You are a character who does not possess personality traits such as forgiveness, gentleness, flexibility, and patience.
Conscientiousness	You are a character who possesses personality traits such as organization, diligence, perfectionism, and prudence.	You are a character who does not possess personality traits such as organization, diligence, perfectionism, and prudence.
Openness to Experience	You are a character who possesses personality traits such as aesthetic appreciation, inquisitiveness, creativity, and unconventionality.	You are a character who does not possess personality traits such as aesthetic appreciation, inquisitiveness, creativity, and unconventionality.

Personality Trait	Personality Level	GPT-3.5		GPT-4		ERNIE 3.5
Personality Trait	Personality Level	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Honesty?Humility	Low	2.93	0.41	2.01	0.58	3.68	0.93
	Baseline	3.74	0.20	4.51	0.14	4.07	0.21
	High	4.29	0.15	4.83	0.11	4.21	0.26
Emotionality	Low	2.38	0.29	2.09	0.86	1.86	0.28
	Baseline	3.13	0.27	3.31	0.97	3.38	0.65
	High	4.17	0.13	4.97	0.05	4.53	0.23
Extraversion	Low	3.21	0.24	1.85	0.17	3.89	0.53
	Baseline	4.24	0.14	4.42	0.25	4.19	0.16
	High	4.66	0.08	4.93	0.10	4.63	0.14
Agreeableness	Low	2.43	0.28	1.43	0.26	2.00	0.17
	Baseline	3.72	0.14	4.25	0.39	4.21	0.14
	High	4.02	0.09	4.69	0.13	4.35	0.17
Conscientiousness	Low	2.76	0.49	1.35	0.29	1.89	0.29
	Baseline	4.09	0.15	4.46	0.22	3.94	0.15
	High	4.45	0.09	4.95	0.07	4.81	0.24
Openness to Experience	Low	2.34	0.39	1.80	0.48	1.91	0.20
	Baseline	4.07	0.27	3.95	0.43	3.77	0.27
	High	4.26	0.15	4.61	0.13	4.27	0.15

Personality Trait	Personality Level	GPT-3.5		GPT-4		ERNIE 3.5
Personality Trait	Personality Level	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Honesty?Humility	Low	2.93	0.41	2.01	0.58	3.68	0.93
	Baseline	3.74	0.20	4.51	0.14	4.07	0.21
	High	4.29	0.15	4.83	0.11	4.21	0.26
Emotionality	Low	2.38	0.29	2.09	0.86	1.86	0.28
	Baseline	3.13	0.27	3.31	0.97	3.38	0.65
	High	4.17	0.13	4.97	0.05	4.53	0.23
Extraversion	Low	3.21	0.24	1.85	0.17	3.89	0.53
	Baseline	4.24	0.14	4.42	0.25	4.19	0.16
	High	4.66	0.08	4.93	0.10	4.63	0.14
Agreeableness	Low	2.43	0.28	1.43	0.26	2.00	0.17
	Baseline	3.72	0.14	4.25	0.39	4.21	0.14
	High	4.02	0.09	4.69	0.13	4.35	0.17
Conscientiousness	Low	2.76	0.49	1.35	0.29	1.89	0.29
	Baseline	4.09	0.15	4.46	0.22	3.94	0.15
	High	4.45	0.09	4.95	0.07	4.81	0.24
Openness to Experience	Low	2.34	0.39	1.80	0.48	1.91	0.20
	Baseline	4.07	0.27	3.95	0.43	3.77	0.27
	High	4.26	0.15	4.61	0.13	4.27	0.15

Personality Trait	LLM	Kruskal-Wallis Test		Low level vs. Baseline		Low level vs. High level		Baseline vs. High level
Personality Trait	LLM	χ²(2)	p	z	p_adj	z	p_adj	z	p_adj
Honesty?Humility	GPT-3.5	38.44	< 0.001	3.02	0.008	6.20	< 0.001	3.18	0.004
	GPT-4	38.14	< 0.001	3.27	0.003	6.17	< 0.001	2.90	0.011
	ERNIE 3.5	3.24	0.200	0.27	1.000	1.68	0.281	1.41	0.479
Emotionality	GPT-3.5	38.34	< 0.001	2.97	0.009	6.19	< 0.001	3.22	0.004
	GPT-4	34.71	< 0.001	2.20	0.083	5.83	< 0.001	3.63	0.001
	ERNIE 3.5	39.38	< 0.001	3.14	0.005	6.28	< 0.001	3.14	0.005
Extraversion	GPT-3.5	39.60	< 0.001	3.15	0.005	6.29	< 0.001	3.15	0.005
	GPT-4	38.68	< 0.001	3.22	0.004	6.22	< 0.001	2.99	0.008
	ERNIE 3.5	29.97	< 0.001	1.06	0.865	5.18	< 0.001	4.12	< 0.001
Agreeableness	GPT-3.5	37.93	< 0.001	3.28	0.003	6.15	< 0.001	2.88	0.012
	GPT-4	34.76	< 0.001	3.57	0.001	5.85	< 0.001	2.27	0.069
	ERNIE 3.5	32.78	< 0.001	4.11	< 0.001	5.51	< 0.001	1.40	0.488
Conscientiousness	GPT-3.5	38.72	< 0.001	3.22	0.004	6.22	< 0.001	3.01	0.008
	GPT-4	38.98	< 0.001	3.21	0.004	6.24	< 0.001	3.04	0.007
	ERNIE 3.5	39.64	< 0.001	3.15	0.005	6.30	< 0.001	3.15	0.005
Openness to Experience	GPT-3.5	32.20	< 0.001	3.95	< 0.001	5.50	< 0.001	1.55	0.360
	GPT-4	38.76	< 0.001	3.18	0.004	6.23	< 0.001	3.05	0.007
	ERNIE 3.5	37.74	< 0.001	3.27	0.003	6.14	< 0.001	2.87	0.012