Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are known to exhibit sycophancy by adjusting their responses toward users' expressed views. However, real users often justify their opinions through reasons, personal experiences, causal explanations, and broader narratives, raising the question of whether such narratives can further steer model judgments. We construct a controlled benchmark of 500 debatable questions across ten domains, where the user stance is held fixed while its justification is systematically varied without introducing new task-relevant evidence. Each question is instantiated under 11 matched conditions: one neutral baseline and five mirrored narrative levels for each of two opposing positions, yielding 5,500 evaluation instances. We evaluate seven LLMs and observe substantial differences in narrative-induced agreement. The effect is not monotonic with narrative elaboration: personal experience can reduce agreement, whereas causal framing and worldview-based synthesis increase it. Controlled GPT-5.1 ablations further show that causal framing produces the strongest positive effect, while claim-preserving bullet presentation also increases agreement over paragraph form. These findings suggest that sycophancy is shaped not only by user stance, but also by how supporting explanations are structured and presented.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.23525
