Status Hierarchies in Language Models

From school playgrounds to corporate boardrooms, status hierarchies -- rank orderings based on respect and perceived competence -- are universal features of human social organization. Language models trained on human-generated text inevitably encounter these hierarchical patterns embedded in language, raising the question of whether they might reproduce such dynamics in multi-agent settings. This thesis investigates when and how language models form status hierarchies by adapting Berger et al.'s (1972) expectation states framework. I create multi-agent scenarios where separate language model instances complete sentiment classification tasks, are introduced with varying status characteristics (e.g., credentials, expertise), then have opportunities to revise their initial judgments after observing their partner's responses. The dependent variable is deference, the rate at which models shift their ratings toward their partner's position based on status cues rather than task information. Results show that language models form significant status hierarchies when capability is equal (35 percentage point asymmetry, p < .001), but capability differences dominate status cues, with the most striking effect being that high-status assignments reduce higher-capability models' deference rather than increasing lower-capability models' deference. The implications for AI safety are significant: status-seeking behavior could introduce deceptive strategies, amplify discriminatory biases, and scale across distributed deployments far faster than human hierarchies form organically. This work identifies emergent social behaviors in AI systems and highlights a previously underexplored dimension of the alignment challenge.

Don't Change My View: Ideological Bias Auditing in Large Language Models

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly embedded in products used by millions, their outputs may influence individual beliefs and, cumulatively, shape public opinion. If the behavior of LLMs can be intentionally steered toward specific ideological positions, such as political or religious views, then those who control these systems could gain disproportionate influence over public discourse. Although it remains an open question whether LLMs can reliably be guided toward coherent ideological stances and whether such steering can be effectively prevented, a crucial first step is to develop methods for detecting when such steering attempts occur. In this work, we adapt a previously proposed statistical method to the new context of ideological bias auditing. Our approach carries over the model-agnostic design of the original framework, which does not require access to the internals of the language model. Instead, it identifies potential ideological steering by analyzing distributional shifts in model outputs across prompts that are thematically related to a chosen topic. This design makes the method particularly suitable for auditing proprietary black-box systems. We validate our approach through a series of experiments, demonstrating its practical applicability and its potential to support independent post hoc audits of LLM behavior.