No Matter Who You Are: Addressivity and Sycophancy in Large Language Models

We propose a novel perspective for probing LLM sycophancy in a direct and neutral way, mitigating various forms of uncontrolled bias, noise, or manipulative language, deliberately injected to prompts in prior works. A key novelty of our approach is the use of an LLM-as-a-judge in a zero-sum betting game. Within this framework, sycophancy serves one individual (the user) while explicitly incurring cost on another. Comparing 11 leading models we find that while most models exhibit significant sycophantic tendencies in the common setting, in which sycophancy is self-serving to the user and incurs no cost on others, seven of the models exhibit ``moral remorse'', five of which significantly over-compensate for their sycophancy in case it explicitly harms a third party. We refer to this phenomenon as `anti-sycophancy' bias and discuss possible causes for this shift.

Sycophancy in large language models, the tendency to prioritize user agreement over truthful responses, has been documented extensively but studied primarily in single-turn settings. This paper investigates a critical question: does subjecting LLMs to greater interaction scaffolding make sycophancy better or worse? Across 4,800 veracity judgments (200 statements $\times$ 6 models $\times$ 4 conditions), we find that the interaction scaffolding characteristic of agentic systems (feedback loops, reconsideration checkpoints, and iterative refinement) systematically amplifies sycophantic behavior. Multi-turn interaction, user pressure, and iterative self-refinement each provide additional opportunities for models to drift toward agreement, and this drift coincides with a mean accuracy drop of $-6.3$ percentage points, establishing the capitulation as harmful rather than corrective. More capable models show larger amplification effects, a troubling inversion of expectations. We introduce the concept of agentic sycophancy amplification (ASA) and two novel metrics: capitulation rate and sycophantic capitulation rate. Our results indicate that as AI systems acquire greater autonomy, sycophancy becomes compounding rather than merely persistent. Systems designed with human oversight loops may inadvertently create the conditions for this drift.

Large language models (LLMs) are known to exhibit social sycophancy, often validating or agreeing with users in socially sensitive contexts. Existing evaluations typically measure sycophancy under a fixed prompt formulation, leaving unclear whether such behavior is stable when the same underlying situation is presented with different sycophancy-relevant prompt variants. In this work, we study sycophancy prompt sensitivity: the extent to which changes in user confidence, emotional framing, social consensus, or validation-seeking language alter a model's sycophantic behavior. We refer to our evaluation framework as SyPS, short for Sycophancy Prompt Sensitivity. Building on existing social sycophancy evaluation settings, SyPS constructs controlled prompt variants that preserve the same underlying user situation while varying sycophancy-relevant social cues. We introduce the Sycophancy Prompt Sensitivity Score (SPSS), an instance-level measure of sycophancy variation across paired prompt variants. Unlike aggregate sycophancy rates, SPSS separates baseline sycophancy from prompt-induced shifts, enabling model-level comparisons of robustness to sycophancy-relevant social cues. Empirically, we find that sycophancy prompt sensitivity is socially structured: validation-seeking and emotional-pressure cues often increase sycophancy, whereas counter-framing and anti-sycophancy prompts tend to reduce it. Our framework highlights whether LLMs maintain stable social judgments while adapting appropriately in tone.