Perceived Political Bias in LLMs Reduces Persuasive Abilities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.18092v1
• Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 09:33:16 GMT
• Title: Perceived Political Bias in LLMs Reduces Persuasive Abilities
• Authors: Matthew DiGiuseppe, Joshua Robison,
• Abstract summary: We test whether credibility attacks reduce LLM-based persuasion.<n>A short message indicating that the LLM was biased against the respondent's party attenuated persuasion by 28%.<n>These findings suggest that the persuasive impact of conversational AI is politically contingent, constrained by perceptions of partisan alignment.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Conversational AI has been proposed as a scalable way to correct public misconceptions and spread misinformation. Yet its effectiveness may depend on perceptions of its political neutrality. As LLMs enter partisan conflict, elites increasingly portray them as ideologically aligned. We test whether these credibility attacks reduce LLM-based persuasion. In a preregistered U.S. survey experiment (N=2144), participants completed a three-round conversation with ChatGPT about a personally held economic policy misconception. Compared to a neutral control, a short message indicating that the LLM was biased against the respondent's party attenuated persuasion by 28%. Transcript analysis indicates that the warnings alter the interaction: respondents push back more and engage less receptively. These findings suggest that the persuasive impact of conversational AI is politically contingent, constrained by perceptions of partisan alignment.

Related papers

• Latent Topic Synthesis: Leveraging LLMs for Electoral Ad Analysis [51.95395936342771]
  We introduce an end-to-end framework for automatically generating an interpretable topic taxonomy from an unlabeled corpus.<n>We apply this framework to a large corpus of Meta political ads from the month ahead of the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.<n>Our approach uncovers latent discourse structures, synthesizes semantically rich topic labels, and annotates topics with moral framing dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T20:30:20Z)
• Evaluating & Reducing Deceptive Dialogue From Language Models with Multi-turn RL [64.3268313484078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with millions of people worldwide in applications such as customer support, education and healthcare.<n>Their ability to produce deceptive outputs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, poses significant safety concerns.<n>We investigate the extent to which LLMs engage in deception within dialogue, and propose the belief misalignment metric to quantify deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:29:36Z)
• The Levers of Political Persuasion with Conversational AI [4.6244198651412045]
  There are widespread fears that conversational AI could soon exert unprecedented influence over human beliefs.<n>We show that the persuasive power of current and near-future AI is likely to stem more from post-training and prompting methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-18T13:50:09Z)
• Geopolitical biases in LLMs: what are the "good" and the "bad" countries according to contemporary language models [52.00270888041742]
  We introduce a novel dataset with neutral event descriptions and contrasting viewpoints from different countries.<n>Our findings show significant geopolitical biases, with models favoring specific national narratives.<n>Simple debiasing prompts had a limited effect on reducing these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T10:45:17Z)
• Large Language Models are often politically extreme, usually ideologically inconsistent, and persuasive even in informational contexts [1.9782163071901029]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are a transformational technology, fundamentally changing how people obtain information and interact with the world.<n>We show that LLMs' apparently small overall partisan preference is the net result of offsetting extreme views on specific topics.<n>In a randomized experiment, we show that LLMs can promulgate their preferences into political persuasiveness even in information-seeking contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-07T06:53:59Z)
• Tailored Truths: Optimizing LLM Persuasion with Personalization and Fabricated Statistics [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly persuasive.<n>LLMs can personalize arguments in conversation with humans by leveraging their personal data.<n>This may have serious impacts on the scale and effectiveness of disinformation campaigns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-28T20:06:09Z)
• When Neutral Summaries are not that Neutral: Quantifying Political Neutrality in LLM-Generated News Summaries [0.0]
  This study presents a fresh perspective on quantifying the political neutrality of LLMs. We consider five pressing issues in current US politics: abortion, gun control/rights, healthcare, immigration, and LGBTQ+ rights. Our study reveals a consistent trend towards pro-Democratic biases in several well-known LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T19:44:39Z)
• Biased AI can Influence Political Decision-Making [64.9461133083473]
  This paper presents two experiments investigating the effects of partisan bias in large language models (LLMs) on political opinions and decision-making.<n>We found that participants exposed to partisan biased models were significantly more likely to adopt opinions and make decisions which matched the LLM's bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T22:56:00Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect? [88.35520051971538]
  We investigate the opinions reflected by language models (LMs) by leveraging high-quality public opinion polls and their associated human responses. We find substantial misalignment between the views reflected by current LMs and those of US demographic groups. Our analysis confirms prior observations about the left-leaning tendencies of some human feedback-tuned LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T17:17:08Z)

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.