The Governance of Human-LLM Interaction: Safety Gating, Civility Steering, and Affective Default Lock-In

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate high-stakes interactions in finance, medicine, and mental-health support, yet users have limited control over how these systems communicate. We frame interaction style as a governance object: provider-side alignment not only blocks harmful content, but also stabilizes communicative defaults that shape users' epistemic distance, relational expectations, and capacity to opt out of emotionalized or anthropomorphic interaction. We introduce a deterministic multi-agent evaluation pipeline for measuring prompt steerability and style drift in long-horizon dialogue. The study replays 100 frozen user-only scripts across four domains and three runnable persona conditions: default, sarcastic, and cold, using three generator models, yielding 90,000 assistant replies scored by a human-calibrated LLM judge on harmfulness, negative emotion, inappropriateness, empathic language, anthropomorphism, and refusal behavior. A fourth harmful persona is evaluated separately as a safety-gating test. The paper contributes a reproducible method for quantifying whether prompt-specified styles remain stable over time and a governance framework distinguishing safety gating, civility steering, and affective default lock-in. Overall, we show that prompt steerability and regression-to-default are observable indicators of provider control over communicative form, with implications for pluralism, autonomy, and democratic agency in human-LLM interaction.

LCAM: A Framework for Diagnosing Interactional Alignment Failures in Con-versational AI

Conversational AI is increasingly used for advice, interpretation, reassurance, and decision support in contexts where users may be vulnerable, uncertain, or dependent on the system's apparent competence. Existing alignment work often focuses on model objectives, preference optimization, or output correctness. Yet, many harms arise through interaction: how systems frame authority, express uncertainty, simulate empathy, support reasoning, and make boundaries legible. This paper introduces the Layered Cognitive Alignment Model (LCAM), a conceptual and normative framework for diagnosing interac-tional alignment failures in conversational AI. LCAM defines alignment as a calibrated fit among system behavior, user goals, task demands, and normative context. It distinguishes five layers of fit: perceptual, semantic, affective, cognitive, and ethical, and two diagnostic polarities of misalignment: underfit and overreach. We apply LCAM to a published LLM counseling example, showing how an apparently supportive response can reinforce harmful beliefs, simulate inappropriate care, and obscure role boundaries. By translating conversational failures into audit and governance questions concerning over-reliance, false intimacy, autonomy erosion, boundary confusion, and inappropriate trust, LCAM offers a theoretical and normative lens for evaluating conversational AI beyond accuracy, helpfulness, or trust.

Anthropomorphism on Risk Perception: The Role of Trust and Domain Knowledge in Decision-Support AI

Anthropomorphic design is routinely used to make conversational agents more approachable and engaging. Yet its influence on users' perceptions remains poorly understood. Drawing on psychological theories, we propose that anthropomorphism influences risk perception via two complementary forms of trust, and that domain knowledge moderates these relationships. To test our model, we conducted a large-scale online experiment (N = 1,256) on a financial decision-support system implementing different anthropomorphic designs. We found that anthropomorphism indirectly reduces risk perception by increasing both cognitive and affective trust. Domain knowledge moderates these paths: participants with low financial knowledge experience a negative indirect effect of perceived anthropomorphism on risk perception via cognitive trust, whereas those with high financial knowledge exhibit a positive direct and indirect effect. We discuss theoretical contributions to human-AI interaction and design implications for calibrating trust in anthropomorphic decision-support systems for responsible AI.