Abstract:Since the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), a significant area of research has focused on their intrinsic biases, particularly in political discourse. This study investigates a different but related concept, "political plasticity", which is defined as the capacity of models to adapt their responses based on the user supplied context. To analyze this, a testing framework was developed using an expanded corpus of 200 politically-oriented questions across economic and personal freedom axes, based on a prior framework by Lester (1996). The study explored several methods to induce political bias, including simplified and topic-based system prompts, as well as user prompts with few-shot examples. The results show that while system prompts were largely ineffective, user prompts successfully elicited significant ideological shifts, particularly along the Economic Freedom axis in larger and newer models. Through a validation experiment, we examined whether models answer questionnaires by recognizing the underlying question format. Inverting the sense of the questions revealed unexpected, counter-intuitive shifts in most models, suggesting potential data leakage. Finally, we also analyzed how model plasticity varies when the experiment is conducted in different languages. The results reveal subtle yet notable shifts across each of the analyzed languages. Overall, our results indicate that small and older LLMs exhibit limited or unstable political plasticity, whereas newer frontier models display reliable, expected adaptability.
| Subjects: | Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2605.08415 [cs.AI] |
| (or arXiv:2605.08415v1 [cs.AI] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.08415 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) |
Submission history
From: Bruno Bianchi [view email]
[v1]
Fri, 8 May 2026 19:21:58 UTC (1,244 KB)