LLMs as annotators: the effect of party cues on labelling decisions by large language models

Human coders can be biased. We test whether Large Language Models (LLMs) replicate those biases when used as text annotators. By replicating an experiment conducted by Ennser-Jedenastik and Meyer (2018), we find evidence that LLMs use political information, and specifically party cues, to evaluate political statements. Not only do LLMs use relevant information to contextualize whether a statement is positive, negative, or neutral based on the party cue, they also reflect the biases of the human-generated data upon which they have been trained. We also find that unlike humans, who are only biased when faced with statements from extreme parties, some LLMs exhibit significant bias even when prompted with statements from center-left and center-right parties. The implications of our findings are discussed in the conclusion.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
Published
2025-09-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05834-4
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Topic Modeling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.48

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

LLMs as annotators: the effect of party cues on labelling decisions by large language models

Sebastián Vallejo Vera, Hunter Driggers
1 citations
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
Topic Modeling
2.48
article

LLMs as annotators: the effect of party cues on labelling decisions by large language models

Sebastián Vallejo Vera, Hunter Driggers
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Human coders can be biased. We test whether Large Language Models (LLMs) replicate those biases when used as text annotators. By replicating an experiment conducted by Ennser-Jedenastik and Meyer (2018), we find evidence that LLMs use political information, and specifically party cues, to evaluate political statements. Not only do LLMs use relevant information to contextualize whether a statement is positive, negative, or neutral based on the party cue, they also reflect the biases of the human-generated data upon which they have been trained. We also find that unlike humans, who are only biased when faced with statements from extreme parties, some LLMs exhibit significant bias even when prompted with statements from center-left and center-right parties. The implications of our findings are discussed in the conclusion.

Humanities and Social Sciences CommunicationsVol. 12(1)
Western University (CA)
Universität Wien
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Topic Modeling
2.48
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

LLMs as annotators: the effect of party cues on labelling decisions by large language models — Sebastián Vallejo Vera, Hunter Driggers · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS