Political Persuasion and Endorsement in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05961v1
• Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 10:00:54 GMT
• Title: Political Persuasion and Endorsement in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as proxies for human behavior in computational social science.<n>We examine whether LLMs endorse persuasion-infused messages and whether partisan persona prompting modulates such endorsement.
• Score: 8.739281909913773
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as proxies for human behavior in computational social science. However, their tendency to internalize biases from training data raises concerns about their reliability in politically sensitive domains, specifically in regard to their susceptibility to persuasive language. In this work, we examine whether LLMs endorse persuasion-infused messages and whether partisan persona prompting modulates such endorsement. We evaluate six LLMs from different geographic regions on content annotated with persuasion techniques drawn from real-world media sources, measuring the likelihood of endorsement using a five-point Likert scale. The models are prompted as either a neutral social media user or as a user with left- or right-leaning political views. Results show that without political conditioning, LLMs generally do not endorse messages containing persuasion techniques, though model-level differences emerge, and that partisan persona prompting increases polarization of endorsement, particularly for persuasion-infused content. Endorsement further varies by persuasion technique and topic. These findings raise concerns about agentic LLM deployments in politically sensitive environments and complicate their use as reliable simulators of human political cognition.

Related papers

• Belief Cascades Drive Persuasion in LLM Agent Networks [71.17605142402785]
  We study how goal-directed persuaders shift elicited stances in networks of LLM agents grounded in real-world ego-network topologies.<n>We show that direct exposure reliably predicts next-round stance change in competing runs, and peer relays carry smaller but measurable influence.<n>These results argue for evaluating multi-agent persuasion as a trajectory- and exposure-level process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T21:01:19Z)
• Passing the Turing Test in Political Discourse: Fine-Tuning LLMs to Mimic Polarized Social Media Comments [0.0]
  This study explores the extent to which fine-tuned large language models (LLMs) can replicate and amplify polarizing discourse.<n>Using a curated dataset of politically charged discussions extracted from Reddit, we fine-tune an open-source LLM to produce context-aware and ideologically aligned responses.<n>The results indicate that, when trained on partisan data, LLMs are capable of producing highly plausible and provocative comments, often indistinguishable from those written by humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T15:41:26Z)
• Democratic or Authoritarian? Probing a New Dimension of Political Biases in Large Language Models [72.89977583150748]
  We propose a novel methodology to assess how Large Language Models align with broader geopolitical value systems.<n>We find that LLMs generally favor democratic values and leaders, but exhibit increases favorability toward authoritarian figures when prompted in Mandarin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-15T07:52:07Z)
• Large Means Left: Political Bias in Large Language Models Increases with Their Number of Parameters [0.571853823214391]
  Large language models (LLMs) are predominantly used by many as a primary source of information for various topics.<n>LLMs frequently make factual errors, fabricate data (hallucinations), or present biases, exposing users to misinformation and influencing opinions.<n>We quantify the political bias of popular LLMs in the context of the recent vote of the German Bundestag using the score produced by the Wahl-O-Mat.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-07T13:18:41Z)
• 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)
• Can (A)I Change Your Mind? [0.6990493129893112]
  Conducted entirely in Hebrew with 200 participants, the study assessed the persuasive effects of both LLM and human interlocutors on controversial civil policy topics.<n>Results indicated that participants adopted LLM and human perspectives similarly, with significant opinion changes evident across all conditions.<n>These findings demonstrate LLM-based agents' robust persuasive capabilities across diverse sources and settings, highlighting their potential impact on shaping public opinions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T18:59:54Z)
• 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)
• 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.