Machine Behavior in Relational Moral Dilemmas: Moral Rightness, Predicted Human Behavior, and Model Decisions

Human moral judgment is context-dependent and modulated by interpersonal relationships. As large language models (LLMs) increasingly function as decision-support systems, determining whether they encode these social nuances is critical. We characterize machine behavior using the Whistleblower's Dilemma by varying two experimental dimensions: crime severity and relational closeness. Our study evaluates three distinct perspectives: (1) moral rightness (prescriptive norms), (2) predicted human behavior (descriptive social expectations), and (3) autonomous model decision-making. By analyzing the reasoning processes, we identify a clear cross-perspective divergence: while moral rightness remains consistently fairness-oriented, predicted human behavior shifts significantly toward loyalty as relational closeness increases. Crucially, model decisions align with moral rightness judgments rather than their own behavioral predictions. This inconsistency suggests that LLM decision-making prioritizes rigid, prescriptive rules over the social sensitivity present in their internal world-modeling, which poses a gap that may lead to significant misalignments in real-world deployments.

Persona Setting Pitfall: Persistent Outgroup Biases in Large Language Models Arising from Social Identity Adoption

Drawing parallels between human cognition and artificial intelligence, we explored how large language models (LLMs) internalize identities imposed by targeted prompts. Informed by Social Identity Theory, these identity assignments lead LLMs to distinguish between "we" (the ingroup) and "they" (the outgroup). This self-categorization generates both ingroup favoritism and outgroup bias. Nonetheless, existing literature has predominantly focused on ingroup favoritism, often overlooking outgroup bias, which is a fundamental source of intergroup prejudice and discrimination. Our experiment addresses this gap by demonstrating that outgroup bias manifests as strongly as ingroup favoritism. Furthermore, we successfully mitigated the inherent pro-liberal, anti-conservative bias in LLMs by guiding them to adopt the perspectives of the initially disfavored group. These results were replicated in the context of gender bias. Our findings highlight the potential to develop more equitable and balanced language models.

I Am Not Them: Fluid Identities and Persistent Out-group Bias in Large Language Models

We explored cultural biases-individualism vs. collectivism-in ChatGPT across three Western languages (i.e., English, German, and French) and three Eastern languages (i.e., Chinese, Japanese, and Korean). When ChatGPT adopted an individualistic persona in Western languages, its collectivism scores (i.e., out-group values) exhibited a more negative trend, surpassing their positive orientation towards individualism (i.e., in-group values). Conversely, when a collectivistic persona was assigned to ChatGPT in Eastern languages, a similar pattern emerged with more negative responses toward individualism (i.e., out-group values) as compared to collectivism (i.e., in-group values). The results indicate that when imbued with a particular social identity, ChatGPT discerns in-group and out-group, embracing in-group values while eschewing out-group values. Notably, the negativity towards the out-group, from which prejudices and discrimination arise, exceeded the positivity towards the in-group. The experiment was replicated in the political domain, and the results remained consistent. Furthermore, this replication unveiled an intrinsic Democratic bias in Large Language Models (LLMs), aligning with earlier findings and providing integral insights into mitigating such bias through prompt engineering. Extensive robustness checks were performed using varying hyperparameter and persona setup methods, with or without social identity labels, across other popular language models.