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.

Many applications of Large Language Models (LLMs) require them to either simulate people or offer personalized functionality, making the demographic representativeness of LLMs crucial for equitable utility. At the same time, we know little about the extent to which these models actually reflect the demographic attributes and behaviors of certain groups or populations, with conflicting findings in empirical research. To shed light on this debate, we review 211 papers on the demographic representativeness of LLMs. We find that while 29% of the studies report positive conclusions on the representativeness of LLMs, 30% of these do not evaluate LLMs across multiple demographic categories or within demographic subcategories. Another 35% and 47% of the papers concluding positively fail to specify these subcategories altogether for gender and race, respectively. Of the articles that do report subcategories, fewer than half include marginalized groups in their study. Finally, more than a third of the papers do not define the target population to whom their findings apply; of those that do define it either implicitly or explicitly, a large majority study only the U.S. Taken together, our findings suggest an inflated perception of LLM representativeness in the broader community. We recommend more precise evaluation methods and comprehensive documentation of demographic attributes to ensure the responsible use of LLMs for social applications.