Investigating Political and Demographic Associations in Large Language Models Through Moral Foundations Theory

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13902v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 19:36:36 GMT
• Title: Investigating Political and Demographic Associations in Large Language Models Through Moral Foundations Theory
• Authors: Nicole Smith-Vaniz, Harper Lyon, Lorraine Steigner, Ben Armstrong, Nicholas Mattei,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly incorporated into everyday life for many internet users.<n>The importance of these roles raise questions about how and what responses LLMs make in difficult political and moral domains.<n>Previous research has used the Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) to measure differences in human participants along political, national, and cultural lines.
• Score: 4.48417484433108
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly incorporated into everyday life for many internet users, taking on significant roles as advice givers in the domains of medicine, personal relationships, and even legal matters. The importance of these roles raise questions about how and what responses LLMs make in difficult political and moral domains, especially questions about possible biases. To quantify the nature of potential biases in LLMs, various works have applied Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), a framework that categorizes human moral reasoning into five dimensions: Harm, Fairness, Ingroup Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Previous research has used the MFT to measure differences in human participants along political, national, and cultural lines. While there has been some analysis of the responses of LLM with respect to political stance in role-playing scenarios, no work so far has directly assessed the moral leanings in the LLM responses, nor have they connected LLM outputs with robust human data. In this paper we analyze the distinctions between LLM MFT responses and existing human research directly, investigating whether commonly available LLM responses demonstrate ideological leanings: either through their inherent responses, straightforward representations of political ideologies, or when responding from the perspectives of constructed human personas. We assess whether LLMs inherently generate responses that align more closely with one political ideology over another, and additionally examine how accurately LLMs can represent ideological perspectives through both explicit prompting and demographic-based role-playing. By systematically analyzing LLM behavior across these conditions and experiments, our study provides insight into the extent of political and demographic dependency in AI-generated responses.

Related papers

• How large language models judge and influence human cooperation [82.07571393247476]
  We assess how state-of-the-art language models judge cooperative actions.<n>We observe a remarkable agreement in evaluating cooperation against good opponents.<n>We show that the differences revealed between models can significantly impact the prevalence of cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T09:14:42Z)
• Fine-Grained Interpretation of Political Opinions in Large Language Models [19.21833592916603]
  Recent work indicates that there is a misalignment between LLMs' responses and their internal intentions.<n>This motivates us to probe LLMs' internal mechanisms and help uncover their internal political states.<n>We designed a four-dimensional political learning framework and constructed a corresponding dataset for fine-grained political concept vector learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T09:06:59Z)
• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• Exploring Persona-dependent LLM Alignment for the Moral Machine Experiment [23.7081830844157]
  This study examines the alignment between socio-driven decisions and human judgment in various contexts of the moral machine experiment.<n>We find that the moral decisions of LLMs vary substantially by persona, showing greater shifts in moral decisions for critical tasks than humans.<n>We discuss the ethical implications and risks associated with deploying these models in applications that involve moral decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T05:29:51Z)
• Examining Alignment of Large Language Models through Representative Heuristics: The Case of Political Stereotypes [20.407518082067437]
  This study examines the alignment of large language models (LLMs) with human values for mitigate the domain of politics.<n>We analyze the factors that contribute to LLMs' deviations from empirical positions on political issues.<n>We find that while LLMs can mimic certain political parties' positions, they often exaggerate these positions more than human survey respondents do.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T07:24:23Z)
• Persuasion with Large Language Models: a Survey [49.86930318312291]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new disruptive possibilities for persuasive communication. In areas such as politics, marketing, public health, e-commerce, and charitable giving, such LLM Systems have already achieved human-level or even super-human persuasiveness. Our survey suggests that the current and future potential of LLM-based persuasion poses profound ethical and societal risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T10:05:52Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models [56.883423489203786]
  We investigate the political orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics. Our investigation delves into the political alignment of LLMs across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics, spanning from abortion to LGBTQ issues. The findings suggest that users should be mindful when crafting queries, and exercise caution in selecting neutral prompt language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T04:02:24Z)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• Do LLM Agents Exhibit Social Behavior? [5.094340963261968]
  State-Understanding-Value-Action (SUVA) is a framework to systematically analyze responses in social contexts. It assesses social behavior through both their final decisions and the response generation processes leading to those decisions. We demonstrate that utterance-based reasoning reliably predicts LLMs' final actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-23T08:46:53Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.