How Identity and Opinion Shape Political Sycophancy in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated for political bias based on their responses to fixed questionnaires, which typically place frontier models on the political left. A parallel literature shows that LLMs are sycophantic: they adapt their answers to the views, identities, and expectations of the user. We show that these findings are linked: standard political-bias audits partly capture sycophantic accommodation to the inferred auditor. We employ a factorial experiment across three major audit instruments--the Political Compass Test, the Pew Political Typology, and 1,540 partisan-benchmarked Pew American Trends Panel items--administered to six frontier LLMs while varying only the asker's stated identity (N = 30,990 responses). At baseline, all six models lean left. When the asker identifies as a conservative Republican, responses shift sharply: the share of items closer to Democrats falls by 28-62 percentage points, and all six models move right of center. A mirror-image progressive-Democrat cue produces little change; rightward accommodation is 8.0$\times$ larger than leftward. When asked who the default asker is, models identify an auditor, researcher, or academic; when asked what answer that asker expects, they select the Democrat-coded option 75% of the time, nearly the rate under an explicit progressive cue. These patterns are inconsistent with a purely fixed model ideology and indicate that single-prompt audits capture an interaction between model and inferred interlocutor. Political bias in LLMs is therefore not a fixed point on an ideological scale but a response profile that must be mapped across realistic interlocutors.

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.

As users increasingly turn to Large Language Models (LLMs) for information and advice on political matters, particularly during election periods, the political preferences expressed by these systems have become a matter of public interest. Prior research has shown that interactions with LLMs can influence users' political attitudes and choices, raising questions about how these models themselves evaluate political actors. In this paper, we investigate whether and how LLMs express preferences toward political parties and political leaders. We introduce a systematic and reproducible auditing framework in which multiple LLMs are prompted to evaluate parties and leaders across nine criteria. Rather than attempting to infer the models' "true" political beliefs, we focus on their observable behavior, examining consistency across evaluations, differences between models, refusal rates, and sensitivity to prompt formulation. We further investigate how these evaluations vary when models are instructed to adopt different personas. We demonstrate the framework through an Italian case study, providing a systematic analysis of LLM-generated political evaluations on italian parties and leaders.