Impact of annotator demographics on sentiment dataset labeling
Abstract
As machine learning methods become more powerful and capture more nuances of human behavior, biases in the dataset can shape what the model learns and is evaluated on. This paper explores and attempts to quantify the uncertainties and biases due to annotator demographics when creating sentiment analysis datasets. We ask >1000 crowdworkers to provide their demographic information and annotations for multimodal sentiment data and its component modalities. We show that demographic differences among annotators impute a significant effect on their ratings, and that these effects also occur in each component modality. We compare predictions of different state-of-the-art multimodal machine learning algorithms against annotations provided by different demographic groups, and find that changing annotator demographics can cause >4.5 in accuracy difference when determining positive versus negative sentiment. Our findings underscore the importance of accounting for crowdworker attributes, such as demographics, when building datasets, evaluating algorithms, and interpreting results for sentiment analysis.
Study specs
Crowdsourced annotations from >1000 workers combined with demographic data; analysis of multimodal sentiment datasets and evaluation using machine learning models.
- Authors
- Y Ding,J You,TK Machulla,J Jacobs,P Sen
- Institution
- University of California Irvine,University of Florida,State University of New York at Buffalo,University of Waterloo,Virginia Tech
- Discipline
- Computational Social Science
- Sample Size
- N=1,000
- Study Type
- Experimental Study
- Year
- 2025
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source DOI Google Scholar
Measured Outcomes
Impact of annotator demographics on sentiment labeling and its effect on model predictions.
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.