Disentangling the Drivers of LLM Social Conformity: An Uncertainty-Moderated Dual-Process Mechanism

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.14918v1
• Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2025 03:53:55 GMT
• Title: Disentangling the Drivers of LLM Social Conformity: An Uncertainty-Moderated Dual-Process Mechanism
• Authors: Huixin Zhong, Yanan Liu, Qi Cao, Shijin Wang, Zijing Ye, Zimu Wang, Shiyao Zhang,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) integrate into collaborative teams, their social conformity has emerged as a key concern.<n>In humans, conformity arises from informational influence (rational use of group cues for accuracy) or normative influence (social pressure for approval)<n>This study adapts the information cascade paradigm from behavioral economics to quantitatively disentangle the two drivers to investigate the moderate effect.
• Score: 19.07643218338789
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) integrate into collaborative teams, their social conformity -- the tendency to align with majority opinions -- has emerged as a key concern. In humans, conformity arises from informational influence (rational use of group cues for accuracy) or normative influence (social pressure for approval), with uncertainty moderating this balance by shifting from purely analytical to heuristic processing. It remains unclear whether these human psychological mechanisms apply to LLMs. This study adapts the information cascade paradigm from behavioral economics to quantitatively disentangle the two drivers to investigate the moderate effect. We evaluated nine leading LLMs across three decision-making scenarios (medical, legal, investment), manipulating information uncertainty (q = 0.667, 0.55, and 0.70, respectively). Our results indicate that informational influence underpins the models' behavior across all contexts, with accuracy and confidence consistently rising with stronger evidence. However, this foundational mechanism is dramatically modulated by uncertainty. In low-to-medium uncertainty scenarios, this informational process is expressed as a conservative strategy, where LLMs systematically underweight all evidence sources. In contrast, high uncertainty triggers a critical shift: while still processing information, the models additionally exhibit a normative-like amplification, causing them to overweight public signals (beta > 1.55 vs. private beta = 0.81).

Related papers

• When Modalities Conflict: How Unimodal Reasoning Uncertainty Governs Preference Dynamics in MLLMs [15.617378124319472]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) must resolve conflicts when different modalities provide contradictory information.<n>We introduce a new framework that decomposes modality following into two fundamental factors: relative reasoning uncertainty and inherent modality preference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-04T04:11:31Z)
• The Personality Illusion: Revealing Dissociation Between Self-Reports & Behavior in LLMs [60.15472325639723]
  Personality traits have long been studied as predictors of human behavior.<n>Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) suggest similar patterns may emerge in artificial systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-03T21:27:10Z)
• Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts [79.1081247754018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks.<n>We propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions(CSQ) to quantify the likelihood of deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T14:46:35Z)
• Persistent Instability in LLM's Personality Measurements: Effects of Scale, Reasoning, and Conversation History [7.58175460763641]
  Even 400B+ models exhibit substantial response variability.<n> Interventions expected to stabilize behavior, such as chain-of-thought reasoning, detailed personas instruction, inclusion of conversation history, can paradoxically increase variability.<n>For safety-critical applications requiring predictable behavior, these findings indicate that personality-based alignment strategies may be fundamentally inadequate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T19:11:33Z)
• FairReason: Balancing Reasoning and Social Bias in MLLMs [50.618158642714505]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) already achieve state-of-the-art results across a wide range of tasks and modalities.<n>Recent studies explore advanced prompting schemes and post-training fine-tuning to push their reasoning ability further.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T19:57:22Z)
• Data Fusion for Partial Identification of Causal Effects [62.56890808004615]
  We propose a novel partial identification framework that enables researchers to answer key questions.<n>Is the causal effect positive or negative? and How severe must assumption violations be to overturn this conclusion?<n>We apply our framework to the Project STAR study, which investigates the effect of classroom size on students' third-grade standardized test performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T07:13:01Z)
• Mind the (Belief) Gap: Group Identity in the World of LLMs [22.96432452893247]
  Social biases and belief-driven behaviors can significantly impact Large Language Models (LLMs) decisions on several tasks.<n>We present a multi-agent framework that simulates belief congruence, a classical group psychology theory that plays a crucial role in shaping societal interactions and preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T19:50:52Z)
• Metacognitive Myopia in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit potentially harmful biases that reinforce culturally inherent stereotypes, cloud moral judgments, or amplify positive evaluations of majority groups. We propose metacognitive myopia as a cognitive-ecological framework that can account for a conglomerate of established and emerging LLM biases. Our theoretical framework posits that a lack of the two components of metacognition, monitoring and control, causes five symptoms of metacognitive myopia in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-10T14:43:57Z)
• Decision-Making Behavior Evaluation Framework for LLMs under Uncertain Context [5.361970694197912]
  This paper proposes a framework, grounded in behavioral economics, to evaluate the decision-making behaviors of large language models (LLMs) We estimate the degree of risk preference, probability weighting, and loss aversion in a context-free setting for three commercial LLMs: ChatGPT-4.0-Turbo, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.0-pro. Our results reveal that LLMs generally exhibit patterns similar to humans, such as risk aversion and loss aversion, with a tendency to overweight small probabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T02:14:19Z)
• Decoding Susceptibility: Modeling Misbelief to Misinformation Through a Computational Approach [61.04606493712002]
  Susceptibility to misinformation describes the degree of belief in unverifiable claims that is not observable. Existing susceptibility studies heavily rely on self-reported beliefs. We propose a computational approach to model users' latent susceptibility levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T07:22:56Z)
• Explaining by Imitating: Understanding Decisions by Interpretable Policy Learning [72.80902932543474]
  Understanding human behavior from observed data is critical for transparency and accountability in decision-making. Consider real-world settings such as healthcare, in which modeling a decision-maker's policy is challenging. We propose a data-driven representation of decision-making behavior that inheres transparency by design, accommodates partial observability, and operates completely offline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T13:06:14Z)
• When Does Uncertainty Matter?: Understanding the Impact of Predictive Uncertainty in ML Assisted Decision Making [68.19284302320146]
  We carry out user studies to assess how people with differing levels of expertise respond to different types of predictive uncertainty. We found that showing posterior predictive distributions led to smaller disagreements with the ML model's predictions. This suggests that posterior predictive distributions can potentially serve as useful decision aids which should be used with caution and take into account the type of distribution and the expertise of the human.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-12T02:23:53Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.