A Cracked Mirror: How People Perceive Gender Performance by Large Language Models

Abstract

How do large language models (LLMs) perform gender under zero-shot prompting, and how do people interpret those performances in conversation? Drawing on gender performativity, we examine how gendered meanings emerge through generated language, conversational context and human interpretation. In a preregistered randomised online experiment, 1,060 participants each had five short conversations with an LLM. We used minimal prompts to elicit performances from "very masculine" to "very feminine" and asked participants to rate their partner's perceived gender after each conversation. Mean ratings shifted in the direction of the prompts, but ratings at the extremes were closer to the midpoint than the prompt labels implied. When prompted to perform as "neither masculine nor feminine", the models were perceived as slightly masculine on average. Ratings varied across models and conversation topics. Women and men gave similar ratings at the extremes, but women rated the models as more masculine across the intermediate prompt levels. Participants' explanations illustrate how they drew on writing style, emotional expression and conversational interests, sometimes questioning the stereotypes behind their judgements. These findings suggest that conversational AI acts as a cracked mirror of gender norms. Models reproduce recognisable cues, and people interpret and sometimes challenge the meanings those cues carry.