We demonstrate that embeddings derived from large language models, when processed with "Survey and Questionnaire Item Embeddings Differentials" (SQuID), can recover the structure of human values obtained from human rater judgments on the Revised Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ-RR). We compare multiple embedding models across a number of evaluation metrics including internal consistency, dimension correlations and multidimensional scaling configurations. Unlike previous approaches, SQuID addresses the challenge of obtaining negative correlations between dimensions without requiring domain-specific fine-tuning or training data re-annotation. Quantitative analysis reveals that our embedding-based approach explains 55% of variance in dimension-dimension similarities compared to human data. Multidimensional scaling configurations show alignment with pooled human data from 49 different countries. Generalizability tests across three personality inventories (IPIP, BFI-2, HEXACO) demonstrate that SQuID consistently increases correlation ranges, suggesting applicability beyond value theory. These results show that semantic embeddings can effectively replicate psychometric structures previously established through extensive human surveys. The approach offers substantial advantages in cost, scalability and flexibility while maintaining comparable quality to traditional methods. Our findings have significant implications for psychometrics and social science research, providing a complementary methodology that could expand the scope of human behavior and experience represented in measurement tools.

Prompt-based language models like GPT4 and LLaMa have been used for a wide variety of use cases such as simulating agents, searching for information, or for content analysis. For all of these applications and others, political biases in these models can affect their performance. Several researchers have attempted to study political bias in language models using evaluation suites based on surveys, such as the Political Compass Test (PCT), often finding a particular leaning favored by these models. However, there is some variation in the exact prompting techniques, leading to diverging findings, and most research relies on constrained-answer settings to extract model responses. Moreover, the Political Compass Test is not a scientifically valid survey instrument. In this work, we contribute a political bias measured informed by political science theory, building on survey design principles to test a wide variety of input prompts, while taking into account prompt sensitivity. We then prompt 11 different open and commercial models, differentiating between instruction-tuned and non-instruction-tuned models, and automatically classify their political stances from 88,110 responses. Leveraging this dataset, we compute political bias profiles across different prompt variations and find that while PCT exaggerates bias in certain models like GPT3.5, measures of political bias are often unstable, but generally more left-leaning for instruction-tuned models. Code and data are available at https://github.com/MaFa211/theory_grounded_pol_bias.