Prompt Perturbations Reveal Human-Like Biases in LLM Survey Responses

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxies for human subjects in social science surveys, but their reliability and susceptibility to known response biases are poorly understood. This paper investigates the response robustness of LLMs in normative survey contexts -- we test nine diverse LLMs on questions from the World Values Survey (WVS), applying a comprehensive set of 11 perturbations to both question phrasing and answer option structure, resulting in over 167,000 simulated interviews. In doing so, we not only reveal LLMs' vulnerabilities to perturbations but also reveal that all tested models exhibit a consistent \textit{recency bias} varying in intensity, disproportionately favoring the last-presented answer option. While larger models are generally more robust, all models remain sensitive to semantic variations like paraphrasing and to combined perturbations. By applying a set of perturbations, we reveal that LLMs partially align with survey response biases identified in humans. This underscores the critical importance of prompt design and robustness testing when using LLMs to generate synthetic survey data.