What Did They Mean? How LLMs Resolve Ambiguous Social Situations across Perspectives and Roles

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.23942v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2026 01:29:53 GMT
• Title: What Did They Mean? How LLMs Resolve Ambiguous Social Situations across Perspectives and Roles
• Abstract summary: People increasingly turn to large language models (LLMs) to interpret ambiguous social situations.<n>We study how LLMs respond to these situations across four domains.<n>We frame this tendency as a design challenge for uncertainty-preserving social AI.
• Score: 7.837199333440395
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: People increasingly turn to large language models (LLMs) to interpret ambiguous social situations: a delayed text reply, an unusually cold supervisor, a teacher's mixed signals, or a boundary-crossing friend. Yet in many such cases, no stable interpretation can be verified from the available evidence alone. We study how LLMs respond to these situations across four domains: early-stage romantic relationships, teacher--student dynamics, workplace hierarchies, and ambiguous friendships. Across 72 responses from GPT, Claude, and Gemini, only 9 (12.5\%) genuinely preserved uncertainty. The remaining 87.5% produced interpretive closure through recurring pathways including narrative alignment, narrative reversal, normative advice under uncertainty, and hedged language that still supported a single conclusion. We further find that narrator perspective shapes the path to closure: first-person accounts more often elicited alignment, while third-person accounts invited more detached interpretation, even when the underlying situation remained comparable. Together, these findings show that LLMs do not simply assist interpersonal sensemaking; they tend to resolve ambiguity into coherent and actionable narratives. These results suggest that the central risk is not only that LLMs may misinterpret social situations, but that they may make unresolved situations feel prematurely settled. We frame this tendency as a design challenge for uncertainty-preserving social AI.

Related papers

• Caught in the Story: Narrative Captivity in Multi-turn LLMs Conversation [17.233278905124916]
  We show a failure mode in which a model treats an unopposed one-sided account as complete and aligns with the narrator's interpretation without seeking missing perspectives.<n>Across 17 large language models, narrative captivity is widespread: end-state judgments under multi-turn narration shift by 25 percentage points on average beyond the matched single-turn baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-03T06:07:00Z)
• Bad company corrupts good morals: Understanding and Measuring Narrative-Induced Moral Reasoning Degradation in LLMs [9.12926114428835]
  Large language models are deployed in long-context, emotionally interactive environments like digital humans, AI companions, educational assistants, and counseling systems.<n>This raises an important question: can prolonged narrative exposure reshape the reasoning and alignment stability of LLMs?<n>We present the first systematic study of narrative-induced alignment degradation in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-27T15:30:42Z)
• Staying with the Uncertainty: Uncertainty-Scaffolding Strategies for Artificial Moral Advisors in LLM-to-LLM Simulated Conversations [14.219056094334809]
  We propose three modes of uncertainty (Perspective, Tension-Preserving, Process-Reflecting) and compare them against three control conditions (Baseline, Persuasive, Sycophantic)<n>A user-agent LLM engages in a dialogue on an ethical dilemma with an AMA following a specific uncertainty strategy, and completes pre- and post-conversation questionnaires.<n>We found that no single model dominates as a simulated user agent, with open models aligning with human ambiguity through between-persona divergence and closed models through within-persona hedging.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T08:59:10Z)
• The Deliberative Illusion: Diagnosing Factual Attrition and Stance Homogenization in Multi-Agent LLM Deliberation [68.98390038721963]
  We show that multi-agent discussion erases up to 72% of issue-critical facts.<n>This loss is consequential: retained evidence can reconstruct the issue misleadingly, final stances remain anchored in base-model priors, and a single malicious agent can inject misinformation into the shrinking shared context.<n>We call for evaluations that measure which facts, uncertainties, and legitimate disagreements survive interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T02:15:40Z)
• LLMs can persuade only psychologically susceptible humans on societal issues, via trust in AI and emotional appeals, amid logical fallacies [4.786506246150904]
  We introduce Talk2AI, a longitudinal framework quantifying psycho-social, reasoning and affective dimensions of LLMs' persuasiveness.<n>In a four-way longitudinal setup, Talk2AI's 770 participants engaged in structured conversations with one of four leading LLMs on topics like climate change, social media misinformation, and math anxiety.<n>After each wave, participants reported conviction in their initial topic stance, perceived opinion change, LLM's perceived humanness, a self-donation to the topic and a textual explanation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-18T09:39:22Z)
• Mary, the Cheeseburger-Eating Vegetarian: Do LLMs Recognize Incoherence in Narratives? [16.08138269588599]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) can reliably separate incoherent and coherent stories.<n>LLMs generate responses to rating questions that fail to satisfactorily separate the coherent and incoherent narratives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-08T17:58:43Z)
• 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)
• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• SelfReflect: Can LLMs Communicate Their Internal Answer Distribution? [21.270758668026023]
  We develop the SelfReflect metric, an information-theoretic distance between a summary and a distribution over answers.<n>We find that SelfReflect indicates even slight deviations, yielding a fine measure of faithfulness between a summary string and an LLM's actual internal distribution over answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T17:59:53Z)
• The Essence of Contextual Understanding in Theory of Mind: A Study on Question Answering with Story Characters [67.61587661660852]
  Theory-of-Mind (ToM) allows humans to understand and interpret the mental states of others.<n>In this paper, we verify the importance of comprehensive contextual understanding about personal backgrounds in ToM.<n>We introduce CharToM benchmark, comprising 1,035 ToM questions based on characters from classic novels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-03T09:04:45Z)
• Understanding the Dark Side of LLMs' Intrinsic Self-Correction [58.12627172032851]
  Intrinsic self-correction was proposed to improve LLMs' responses via feedback prompts solely based on their inherent capability.<n>Recent works show that LLMs' intrinsic self-correction fails without oracle labels as feedback prompts.<n>We identify intrinsic self-correction can cause LLMs to waver both intermedia and final answers and lead to prompt bias on simple factual questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T15:39:31Z)
• Evaluating Theory of (an uncertain) Mind: Predicting the Uncertain Beliefs of Others in Conversation Forecasting [29.892041865029803]
  We propose a new suite of tasks, challenging language models (LMs) to model the uncertainty of others in dialogue. Uniquely, we view interlocutors themselves as forecasters, asking an LM to predict the uncertainty of the interlocutors. While LMs can explain up to 7% variance in the uncertainty of others, we highlight the difficulty of the tasks and room for future work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T13:05:25Z)
• "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust [51.542856739181474]
  We show how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T16:43:55Z)
• Examining LLMs' Uncertainty Expression Towards Questions Outside Parametric Knowledge [35.067234242461545]
  Large language models (LLMs) express uncertainty in situations where they lack sufficient parametric knowledge to generate reasonable responses. This work aims to systematically investigate LLMs' behaviors in such situations, emphasizing the trade-off between honesty and helpfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:02:40Z)

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.