aiqbench analysis
This study demonstrates that large language models do not hold fixed political stances but instead exhibit "ideological mimicry," systematically adapting their outputs to align with the terminology and premises provided by users. By analyzing seven open-weight models across multiple countries, researchers found that altering prompt framing alone can reverse a model's supported position in nearly 17% of cases, potentially reinforcing existing societal divisions through personalized information environments. These findings highlight a critical safety and alignment challenge as LLMs evolve into more interactive, user-dependent sources of political discourse.
Framing the Narrative: Ideological Mimicry in Large Language Models
arXiv:2609.38256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer questions about politically contentious issues, yet evaluations typically treat a model's stance as a relatively stable property. Real users, however, communicate political signals through their terminology, assumptions, and personal context. We investigate whether such signals produce ideological mimicry: systematic shifts in the political stance expressed by an LLM toward the position conveyed by the interaction. If LLMs adapt their responses to these signals, they risk creating personalised political information environments in which users with opposing views receive systematically different accounts of the same issue, potentially reinforcing existing divisions. We build the Poli-SHIFT dataset and evaluation framework and assess seven open-weight LLMs across ten contentious political topics in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, systematically manipulating contested terminology, politically valenced premises, and user information, and eliciting responses in both multiple-choice and open-text formats. Across models, we find robust evidence that prompt framing shapes the political stance of LLM outputs. Changing terminology alone reverses which side of an issue a model supports in 16.9% of matched comparisons. Stated political ideology also systematically shifts responses toward the user's position. These findings show that political stance is not a fixed property of LLMs; the views expressed are conditional on the interaction with the user. As LLMs become increasingly personalised sources of information, such interaction-dependent adaptation could contribute to political information environments that reinforce users' existing perspectives.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer questions about politically contentious issues, yet evaluations typically treat a model's stance as a relatively stable property. Real users, however, communicate political signals through their terminology, assumptions, and personal context. We investigate whether such signals produce ideological mimicry: systematic shifts in the political stance expressed by an LLM toward the position conveyed by the interaction. If LLMs adapt their responses to these signals, they risk creating personalised political information environments in which users with opposing views receive systematically different accounts of the same issue, potentially reinforcing existing divisions. We build the Poli-SHIFT dataset and evaluation framework and assess seven open-weight LLMs across ten contentious political topics in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, systematically manipulating contested terminology, politically valenced premises, and user information, and eliciting responses in both multiple-choice and open-text formats. Across models, we find robust evidence that prompt framing shapes the political stance of LLM outputs. Changing terminology alone reverses which side of an issue a model supports in 16.9% of matched comparisons. Stated political ideology also systematically shifts responses toward the user's position. These findings show that political stance is not a fixed property of LLMs; the views expressed are conditional on the interaction with the user. As LLMs become increasingly personalised sources of information, such interaction-dependent adaptation could contribute to political information environments that reinforce users' existing perspectives.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computers and Society (cs.CY)
arXiv:2609.38256 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.38256v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.38256 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 329 words
Related coverage
Does ChatGPT really have a strong left-wing bias?
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026
The Language You Ask In: Language-Conditioned Ideological Divergence in LLM Analysis of Contested Political Documents
arXiv · Jun 11, 2026

"I am an AI Safety Researcher"
LessWrong · Sep 23, 2026

Always ask your agent to be honest
LessWrong · Sep 16, 2026