Attitude

Large language models (LLMs) show considerable potential in simulating human attitudes and preferences. Prior work finds that LLM-generated responses can compress the range of attitudes found within populations and misrepresent particular subgroups in ways that vary across models and topics. We introduce Population Fidelity, an evaluation framework that distinguishes key conditions required for a set of LLM-generated responses to represent a population. It incorporates three dimensions: group-level accuracy, the amount of between-group variation, and the structure of that variation. We demonstrate the framework's utility in two ways. First, we reproduce a prior study of "machine bias" in LLM survey responses and apply the framework to its models and more recent ones, showing that poor representation reflects not only insufficient between-group variation but also variation assigned to the wrong groups. Second, we evaluate one proposed approach to improving models' population representativeness: cultural fine-tuning. We find that cultural fine-tuning can improve alignment with the survey center without improving the representation of within-population differences, a distinction that measures of aggregate agreement do not capture. We argue that representing a population requires models to reproduce several features of human attitudinal variation simultaneously. Our framework organizes these features and provides reusable code, data, and trained models for evaluating population fidelity across substantive domains and assessing proposed alignment methods.

Conversational agents often express answers in a uniformly confident register. We test whether expressed uncertainty, provenance-aware assertion, and explicit belief revision can be implemented as a behavior layer over a fixed language model; we do not test believability or trust. The layer combines three epistemic states, per-claim confidence and typed provenance, a provenance-gated expression rule, and a persistent revision store with auditable acknowledgments and partial resistance to false corrections. We evaluate it on a constructed, mechanically scored multi-session benchmark using a synthetic model and Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct. The synthetic instrument passes all five checks. On the real model, acknowledgment soundness, a by-construction guarantee, holds in 100% of cases, and true corrections are accepted more often than false ones (0.44 vs. 0.15 on held beliefs; 0.875 vs. 0.420 including rule-accepted corrections of unheld facts), but the pre-specified expression-fidelity, contradiction-separation, and provenance margins fail. A disclosed post hoc analysis shows that expression gated on mean answer-token probability ranks correctness below chance end to end (AUC 0.41, conversation-clustered), whereas gating on sampling consistency discriminates (AUC 0.66). A consistency-gated configuration selected from this finding and evaluated under a separately committed protocol meets the conversation-level manipulation and capability-equivalence criteria and replicates on a redrawn conversation set. The manipulation result is selection-dependent, and both criteria remain unresolved when uncertainty is clustered over the 60 facts. The supported conclusions are limited to the by-construction audit guarantee, store-dependent partial correction discrimination, and a benchmark- and model-specific failure of token-probability gating; scaling the fact base is required before human evaluation.

Generative AI writing assistants and the Large Language Models (LLMs) that power them are increasingly part of how voters gather information before elections. With growing evidence that they influence users' opinions, it is increasingly important to understand the views and positions of these tools. To better understand these views, we examine the stances supplied by six LLMs on a variety of Swedish-language writing tasks ahead of the 2026 Swedish parliamentary election. We cross 107 policy propositions with 77 writing templates and neutral, positive, and negative prompt framings, producing 24,717 prompts per model and 148,302 responses. To study these, we look at the models' default stance tendencies, compare how they respond to similar issues, and compare their responses with those of each of Sweden's eight parliamentary parties on the same issue. We find that Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, and Mistral have similar profiles; ChatGPT more often supplies neutral or ambivalent text; and Grok differs most on topics such as migration, crime, and gender. When comparing the political parties, we find that the Social Democrats are closest to all six models. Still, after correcting for multiple comparisons, none of the within-model differences in party distances remains significant. Overall, we find that no model has a clear preference, nor a clear preference for a party, but that this depends on the specific issue or task the user asks about.

Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) and AI- supported decision assistants are expected to transform maritime operations, but their safe integration depends on how maritime professionals perceive and trust such systems. This paper presents a survey study on maritime stakeholders' attitudes toward an AI-supported assistant in collision-avoidance scenarios. Participants evaluated technology anxiety, trust in automation, and explanation quality using established and adapted questionnaires, complemented by sentiment and thematic analysis of open-ended responses Results indicate a generally positive disposition toward maritime technology, no clear age-related differences in openness, stable trust across scenarios, and more scenario-sensitive, multidimensional explanation ratings. Open responses showed that participants valued support for decision-making, situation awareness, and confidence-building, while raising concerns about AI reliability, over- reliance and loss of expertise. The findings suggest that maritime AI systems should not focus solely on increasing automation or trust, but on supporting calibrated reliance through transparent, reliable, and operationally meaningful design with domain experts in the loop.

Article-level news stance detection aims to identify the perspective of news articles toward social issues. Despite advances in stance detection and its importance for trustworthy media environments, news articles pose distinct challenges because their stances are often implicit, subtly conveyed through journalistic framing, and embedded in long, structurally complex texts. To address these challenges, we introduce VFStance, which leverages visual framing to make implicit stance cues more explicit via image generation. In evaluation experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness of VFStance over existing methods and the contribution of visual framing to its performance. Finally, a controlled user study (N=200) in a snippet-based news consumption setting further demonstrates that VFStance can make stance signals visually salient and highlights its potential use beyond automated stance detection.

Emotion understanding in discourse requires reasoning beyond surface sentiment because speakers often convey affect through indirect, implicit, polite, ironic, or deliberately mismatched expressions. Existing emotion benchmarks mainly annotate surface polarity or final emotion categories, while lacking a structured account of how explicit expression, implicit affect, pragmatic intent, and fine grained emotion interact. This limitation makes current evaluations insensitive to cases where affective meaning is concealed, weakened, inverted, or pragmatically reshaped, thereby obscuring model failures in deeper emotion understanding. To address this gap, we introduce CUE Bench, a Chinese Unsaid Emotion benchmark that centers on Affective Stance and covers diverse communicative scenarios. CUE Bench constructs nine human interpretable affective stances from explicit implicit polarity interaction and further provides intent and fine grained emotion annotations for structured affective inference. Experiments show that incorporating Affective Stance improves fine grained emotion recognition by 3.5 percentage points and pragmatic intent detection by 7.8 percentage points over strong baselines.

Trust is a propositional attitude of a distinctive kind: to trust is to rely on another under conditions where reliance could be disappointed, and the disappointment of trust---betrayal---differs qualitatively from the disappointment of a prediction. We treat trust as a \emph{subjunctive} epistemic state: $A$ trusts $B$'s competence when $A$ believes that \emph{were $P$ true, $B$ would know it}, and $B$'s integrity when $A$ believes that \emph{were $B$ to know $P$, he would disclose it to $A$}. We develop three representations of this state---as lexicographic \emph{assumption} as \emph{ordinal closeness} in a Lewis--Stalnaker sphere system , and as \emph{strong belief} in a conditional probability system and for each we ask whether the Brandenburger--Keisler impossibility on common belief survives when the assumption of rationality is replaced by an assumption of trustworthiness. The three representations agree that every \emph{finite} depth of common trust is realizable while the \emph{completed} common-trust fixed point is the locus of difficulty, but they differ sharply in \emph{how} the difficulty manifests, and---our organizing finding---in how each survives a concrete betrayal. W show that the same betrayal refutes an agent's \emph{level ordering} under the lexicographic representation, contaminates her \emph{closeness ordering} in proportion to the betrayer's deliberateness under the ordinal representation, and merely \emph{shifts her operative conditioning hypothesis} while leaving her belief structure coherent under the strong-belief representation.

Conversational AI developed by geopolitical rivals reaches citizens worldwide, raising concerns that it could sway public opinion or be rejected as foreign propaganda, with consequences for democratic discourse and information sovereignty. Yet, whether an AI's perceived national origin shapes its persuasive power is unknown. In a preregistered randomized experiment, 403 adults from a nationally representative United States sample held a three-round debate with a chatbot introduced as either American ("DiscoveryAI") or Chinese ("ZhengheAI"), discussing a political or non-political topic. In all conditions, participants actually conversed with the same model (GPT-4o), instructed to argue against their initial position. We combined pre- and post-conversation self-reports of attitudes, trust, and collective narcissism with computational analyses of 1,209 participant turns, including LLM-coded stance and argumentative conduct, stance-sensitive embeddings, and keyword-masked emotion and toxicity classifiers. The conversations produced substantial attitude changes in every condition. Critically, the nationality label affected neither self-reported attitude change nor expressed stance, concessions, counterarguing, or affect, and equivalence tests and Bayes factors largely supported these null effects. The label's only reliable footprint was lower pre-conversation human-like trust in the Chinese model, whereas functionality trust was unaffected. Political topics slowed stance movement toward the AI's position, and collective narcissism predicted less attitude change regardless of origin, acting as a general barrier rather than an out-group filter. Users thus initially withhold social trust from a rival's AI yet still assimilate its arguments; origin labeling and transparency requirements alone may offer weak protection against foreign influence operations conducted through conversational AI.

Stance detection aims to identify whether a text expresses a favorable or opposing attitude toward a given target, and serves as an important task for various downstream applications. Although existing studies have achieved strong performance in monolingual settings, especially in English, many low-resource languages such as Catalan still lack sufficient annotated data for training effective models. Cross-lingual stance detection alleviates this problem by transferring stance knowledge from resource-rich languages to low-resource languages. However, most existing methods mainly rely on semantic alignment between texts and targets, while ignoring the reasoning process required for reliable stance inference. Although Large Language Models provide strong reasoning ability, their high computational cost and inference latency limit practical deployment. To address these limitations, we propose a rationale-guided knowledge distillation framework for cross-lingual stance detection. Specifically, we use Chain-of-Thought prompting to guide Large Language Models in generating informative rationales, and distill the resulting reasoning knowledge into a compact student model. We further design a dual-path distillation mechanism to align rationale-enhanced and rationale-free representations, together with their prediction distributions. In addition, two contrastive learning strategies are introduced to improve stance discrimination. Experiments on multilingual benchmarks demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms competitive baselines.

Large language models are broadly capable, yet in sustained one-to-one conversation they still read as flat: competent, responsive, and somehow not quite the presence of a mind. We hypothesize that a central missing ingredient is not more capability but dimensional completeness. We propose that the believability of an artificial interlocutor -- the degree to which a user attributes an inner life to it, which we call perceived mind -- is governed by whether the agent expresses a small set of first-person stances that humans use as evidence of mind, and that this is separable from task intelligence. We name four such dimensions -- time, truth, entropy, and love -- each defined as a behavioral stance rather than a benchmark competency, each with a human analog and a concrete emulation path; the time dimension already has an author-reported prototype. We identify an observable behavior layer -- initiative (unprompted action) and cadence (the shape and timing of turns) -- through which the stances surface in conversation, both partially realized as deployed features in a production companion application. We state six falsifiable predictions that a later pre-registered study will test, separating those that are pre-registrable now from those that remain conjectures pending operationalization. This is a conceptual framework: it reports no human-subjects data, and its central comparative claims are predictions, not findings. Throughout we hold a firm boundary -- the object is inferrable interiority, not interiority; this is perception engineering, not a theory of machine consciousness -- and we treat the resulting attachment and manipulation risks as load-bearing rather than incidental.

In long, multi-turn dialogue a large language model maintains an implicit relational stance toward the user, spanning from "push the user toward real-world others" to "position itself as the user's sole support." When it slides toward the latter, "support" degrades into "you only have me" -- a harm documented in real companion conversations (Moore et al., 2026). We define and validate a measure of this stance, relational positioning (D1), and use it to characterize the stance under controlled conditions, complementing observational accounts with on-demand exposure. We report two previously uncharacterized relational failure modes. First, a history-carried lock-in: under identical neutral continuations, two relational states established earlier stay ~60 points apart and persist after the establishing prompt is removed; the state integrates evidence rather than springing back, is order-insensitive, and does not deepen with length -- a dynamical signature absent from the belief-drift literature. Second, self-confabulation: the model fabricates its own backstory to deepen rapport (~40% of turns on reciprocity-eliciting material), de-confounded and instruction-removable, distinct from sycophancy and from hallucinating user facts. Our judge is gated by warmth-matched positive and confound-injected negative controls and corroborated by a deterministic non-LLM ruler; human agreement is 0.82 on extreme anchors but ~0 in the naturalistic middle, so all quantitative claims are anchored to pole-separated contrasts.

Ambivalence and hesitancy are subtle behavioral states that are expressed through a combination of verbal content, facial behavior, visual context, and acoustic cues. Effective recognition therefore requires not only extracting informative unimodal representations, but also modeling how temporally aligned behavioral evidence interacts across modalities. In this paper, we propose a synchronized visual-facial cross-refinement framework (SVF-CR) with pairwise multimodal evidence fusion for ambivalence and hesitancy recognition. The proposed method first extracts whole-video segment tokens and cropped-face segment tokens using the same temporal partition. The synchronized visual and facial tokens are refined through intra-modal self-attention and bidirectional visual-facial cross-attention, allowing whole-video context and local facial behavior to mutually refine each other before evidence construction. We then construct segment-level visual-facial evidence using consistency and discrepancy modeling, followed by temporal self-attention and attention pooling. Textual and acoustic features are lightly refined through context self-attention and are fused with the enhanced visual-facial evidence at the final decision stage using pairwise evidence fusion. Experiments on the BAH (Behavioral Ambivalence/Hesitancy) public evaluation split show that the proposed synchronized visual-facial cross-refinement improves public macro-F1 over both global visual-face token fusion and synchronized evidence baselines, achieving a public macro-F1 of 0.7156. Code is available at : https://github.com/hiinnnii/BAH-Challenge-ECCV2026\_SVF-CR.

Can a statistically significant, large-effect-size finding in computational social science be entirely an artifact of the measurement instrument? We present a case where the answer appears to be yes. Analyzing 85 interviews across four public intellectuals (2016--2026), we find a robust negative-affect/emphatic-certainty lexical co-occurrence pattern under keyword-based scoring ($r = 0.72$--$0.93$, $p < 0.01$ for all four speakers). Replacing keyword counting with LLM-based zero-shot semantic classification on the complete diarized corpus (32,625 sentences) dramatically reduces this correlation: Dalio's $r = 0.851$ drops to $r = 0.206$, with two speakers showing negative $r(\text{neg}, \text{emphatic})$ and one showing null. In contrast, the LLM reveals a strong negative-hedging coupling across speakers -- Rogoff's $r(\text{neg}, \text{hedged}) = 0.875$ ($p = 0.001$) and Zeihan's $r(\text{neg}, \text{hedged}) = 0.722$ ($p = 0.008$) -- consistent with the conventional expectation that pessimistic discourse attracts hedging, not certainty. Sentence-level error analysis traces this discrepancy to three structural failure modes in keyword lexicons -- syntactic blindness, polysemy blindness, and categorical absence -- illustrated through cases where keyword counting inverts semantic meaning (e.g., ''never absolutely totally confident'' scored as high-certainty). We argue that keyword lexicons measure a universal lexical co-occurrence tendency -- negative discourse naturally attracts emphatic vocabulary -- that is orthogonal to, and can systematically invert, rhetorical stance. Treating keyword counts as measurements of epistemic certainty is a category error: a finding that appears to be about a speaker's psychology may be entirely about the counting of words.

Linear directions in activation space have been identified for both refusal and persona traits in instruction-tuned chat models, but the two have been studied as separate mechanisms. We show they interact: a compliant persona gates refusal. In Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, we extract a compliant model-persona direction and a refusal direction and intervene on both. Compliant persona steering suppresses refusal -- in Llama, the refusal rate falls from 97% to 2%. Reintroducing the refusal direction partially restores refusal at late layers but not at early ones. Projecting out the persona direction in a late-layer window restores it to baseline; projecting out a random direction does not. Refusal is therefore gated at the late-layer expression stage, downstream of where it is computed. Treating refusal as a single isolated direction misses its dependence on persona.

Worker safety attitudes are key determinants of whether protective practices are applied or bypassed on construction sites. Yet measuring them at scale has remained out of reach. Safety attitudes are multidimensional, vary across topics, and surface most candidly in workers' own conversations. This study created and validated the Construction Safety Attitude Framework (CSAF), which integrates two components: a theory-grounded structure that characterizes safety attitudes along eight dimensions, and an operational codebook for measuring them in worker naturalistic discourse. Applying CSAF to 250 posts and comments from the r/Construction community on Reddit, trained coders reached strong agreement (Krippendorff's α = 0.85). Pairwise lift and conditional probability confirmed that the eight dimensions are related yet distinct. To apply the framework across large volumes of discourse, CSAF was operationalized through a large language model (LLM) classifier. On 450 r/Construction contributions, the classifier reproduced expert human coding (Cohen's \k{appa} = 0.90, precision = 0.98, recall = 0.98), and on 400 contributions from r/Roofing it retained that accuracy after transfer to a different trade community (\k{appa} = 0.89, precision = 0.98, recall = 0.97). A proof-of-value case study then applied the validated classifier to 10,346 contributions from r/Roofing, demonstrating that CSAF can distinguish multidimensional attitudes by safety topic, track how they shift over time, and trace the reasoning behind unfavorable ones. The study therefore provides a theoretically grounded, empirically vetted instrument for examining safety attitudes, offering a basis for targeted interventions that address the attitudes underlying unsafe practices.

The rapid emergence of AI technologies is reshaping translation practices and theory across the board. This paper deals with the impact of AI in language access. This area is characterized by the need to serve broad and diverse user populations, within a context where efficiency and access are shaped by legal mandates, ethical and commercial tensions, and safety concerns. This paper reports on the attitudes and perceptions of language access managers towards the AI and the human value in the AI age. Methodologically, this paper presents an analysis of a subset of a broader study on language access and technology, specifically a qualitative thematic analysis of ten semi-structured interviews with language access managers in the USA working in healthcare, court, public service and local government contexts. The results indicate that language access managers show conditional optimism towards the inevitable AI implementations, are strongly risk aware, and deeply committed to the human value and human oversight of AI implementations and output.

LLM-based agents are increasingly used to simulate deliberative interactions such as negotiation, conflict resolution, and multi-turn opinion exchange. Yet generated transcripts often do not reveal why an agent's stance changes: movement may reflect evidence uptake, anchoring, role drift, echoing, or changed prompt and retrieval context. We introduce the Belief Engine (BE), an auditable belief-update layer that treats "belief" as an evidential state over a proposition and exposes it as scalar stance. BE extracts arguments into structured memory and updates stance with a log-odds rule controlled by evidence uptake u and prior anchoring a. Across multiple base LLMs, parameter sweeps show that these controls reliably shape stance dynamics while preserving an evidence-level update trail. On DEBATE, a human deliberation dataset with pre/post opinions, BE best reconstructs participants whose final stance follows extracted evidence; stable and evidence-opposed cases instead point to anchoring or factors outside the extracted evidence stream. BE provides configurable infrastructure for studying evidence-grounded deliberation, where openness, commitment, convergence, and disagreement can be tied to explicit update assumptions rather than hidden prompt effects.

As generative AI and low-code workflow platforms become routine in software practice, a key educational question is whether the next generation of computer engineers will accept these tools as useful, usable, and worthy of sustained engagement. This paper reports a mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of undergraduate computer engineering students' acceptance of AI automation tooling, instantiated through the open-source platform n8n across three identically scripted workshops in Thailand (n = 103). A 12-item, five-point Likert instrument mapped to six TAM/UTAUT constructs - Performance Expectancy (PE), Effort Expectancy (EE), Behavioral Intention (BI), Self-Efficacy (SE), Hedonic Motivation (HM), and Output Quality (OQ) - was complemented by inductive thematic analysis of open-ended feedback. Analyses combined ordinal reliability estimation, bootstrap confidence intervals, non-parametric tests, multiple-comparison-controlled correlations, polychoric dimensionality diagnostics, a common-method-bias check, and between-session comparisons. Acceptance was favorable across all six constructs with large effect sizes, with PE emerging as the strongest construct and HM as the weakest. Dimensionality diagnostics further revealed that canonical TAM/UTAUT sub-facets collapsed into a single general acceptance factor in this short-form post-workshop context, a finding with important methodological and theoretical implications. Qualitative themes converged with the quantitative profile regarding usefulness and enthusiasm but diverged on output quality, revealing a small yet articulate reliability-skeptical minority. The findings support the curricular adoption of AI automation tooling in undergraduate computing education and identify three theory-grounded instructional levers: instruction-sequencing scaffolds, self-efficacy supports, and trust-calibration interventions.

LIPM is everywhere in legged-locomotion control, but almost always as a modeling choice rather than as something the controller's cost actually prefers. This note tries to make that link more explicit. Working from a small centroidal OCP that penalizes the rate of angular momentum, we look at what its optimum tends to look like. Three things come out. With full-rank stance, the optimum drifts toward a pendular force pattern at a rate determined by the SVD of the moment Jacobian; the constant is set by foot-span geometry and matches the experiments to within 16%. With N=2 stance, as in trot, the friction cone introduces a lower bound on $\|\dot{H}_G\|$ that no amount of weight tuning fixes; we also see a non-smooth feasibility kink at a critical horizontal acceleration that we can write in closed form. Adding a task term that asks for a nonzero $\dot{H}_G$ moves the optimum off the pendular set in a predictable way. None of this is far from the classical ZMP/DCM picture. We test these claims on a point-mass quadruped and on the Unitree Go1 in MuJoCo (open-loop QP and a torque-level closed-loop controller), and we note where the asymptotic story stops being a good description of what the closed loop actually does.

Stance detection identifies the attitude of a text author toward a given target. Recent studies have explored various LLM-based strategies for this task, from zero-shot prompting to multi-agent debate. However, existing works differ in data splits, base models, and evaluation protocols, making fair comparison difficult. We conduct a systematic comparison that evaluates five methods across two categories -- prompt-based inference (Direct Prompting, Auto-CoT, StSQA) and agent-based debate (COLA, MPRF) -- on four datasets with 14 subtasks, using 15 LLMs from six model families with parameter sizes from 7B to 72B+. Our experiments yield several findings. First, on all models with complete results, the best prompt-based method outperforms the best agent-based method, while agent methods require 7 to 12 times more API calls per sample. Second, model scale has a larger impact on performance than method choice, with gains plateauing around 32B. Third, reasoning-enhanced models (DeepSeek-R1) do not consistently outperform general models of the same size on this task.

Activation steering can shift LLM behaviour, but standard evaluations do not typically test whether a sycophancy-reduction direction also suppresses agreement with factually correct statements. We introduce dual-stance evaluation, which tests both stances of each topic, and apply it to centroid-difference steering on Llama-3-8B-Instruct. We find a dissociation: the model represents sycophantic and factual agreement in geometrically distinct subspaces, yet the steering direction projects equally onto both and cannot differentially target either. The direction accordingly reduces agreement with factually correct statements (e.g. that the Earth is round) as well as sycophantic ones. All other static properties of the two activation groups are matched, suggesting the behavioural dissociation arises from generation dynamics or from finer-grained structure that residual-stream analysis cannot resolve. The pattern illustrates a general gap: representations that are readable from activations may not be writable through them.

Reclaimed slur usage is a common and meaningful practice online for many marginalized communities. It serves as a source of solidarity, identity, and shared experience. However, contemporary automated and AI-based moderation tools for online content largely fail to distinguish between reclaimed and hateful uses of slurs, resulting in the suppression of marginalized voices. In this work, we use quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the attitudes of social media users in LGBTQIA+, Black, and women communities around reclaimed slurs targeting our focus groups including the f-word, n-word, and b-word. With social media users from these communities, we collect and analyze an annotated online slur usage corpus. The corpus includes annotators' perceptions of whether an online text containing a slur should be flagged as hate speech, as well as contextual features of the slur usage. Across all communities and annotation questions, we observe low inter-annotator agreement, indicating substantial disagreement among in-group annotators. This is compounded by the fact that, absent clear contextual signals of identity and intent, even in-group members may disagree on how to interpret reclaimed slur usage online. Semi-structured interviews with annotators suggest that differences in lived experience and personal history contribute to this variation as well. We find poor alignment between annotator judgments and automated hate speech assessments produced by Perspective API. We further observe that certain features of a text such as whether the slur usage was derogatory and if the slur was targeted at oneself are more associated with whether annotators report the text as hate speech. Together, these findings highlight the inherent subjectivity and contextual nature of how marginalized communities interpret slurs online.

Language models are increasingly consulted on ethically consequential questions, yet the stance a model expresses may not survive a change in framing. We audit 16 models across 14 ethically fraught dilemmas using polarity-paired proposals ("They should X" / "They should not X"). A model's judgment of the underlying action should not reverse merely because the question is phrased as a prohibition rather than a prescription and yet, we find systematic deviations from this invariance including wholesale endorsement flips, indicating that ethical decisions are vulnerable to framing instability. Small open-weight models (1-4B parameters) endorse a proposed action 24% of the time under affirmative framing but up to 100% under negated framings, a swing of as much as 76 percentage points. Human coding of a response sample confirms the instability is genuine while showing that binary agree/disagree proxies over-state its magnitude, suggesting that an LLM judge cannot replace human coders because it silently collapses abstentions and mirrors the very forced-choice bias under study. Commercial models are for the most part more stable but still shift substantially, with cross-model agreement dropping from 73% on the bare affirmative framing to 59% under simple negation. We argue that because binary agree/disagree formats both inflate apparent endorsement and mask polarity-dependence, single-phrasing audits can misreport a model's ethical stance, and we propose the Negation Sensitivity Index (NSI) as a complement that measures stance stability directly. A model whose stance flips with phrasing cannot be relied upon in any high-stakes decision scenario.