Examining Human-Like Behaviors in LLMs: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Model Behaviors, User Factors, and System Prompts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.18258v1
• Date: Thu, 07 May 2026 18:58:50 GMT
• Title: Examining Human-Like Behaviors in LLMs: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Model Behaviors, User Factors, and System Prompts
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) exhibit a wide range of human-like behaviors.<n>We use a multi-dimensional analysis of the prevalence, potential effects, and controllability of these behaviors using LLM-as-a-judge and human evaluation.<n>We show that system prompting can control these behaviors, though it requires careful evaluation to avoid unintended effects.
• Score: 9.62483752303596
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) exhibit a wide range of human-like behaviors, from expressing thoughts and emotions, to engaging in relationship-building with users, to refusing requests and maintaining boundaries. Despite their prevalence, researchers and practitioners lack methods and empirical insights to make informed decisions about when and what types of human-like behaviors LLMs should exhibit. To fill this gap, we present a multi-dimensional analysis of the prevalence, potential effects, and controllability of these behaviors using LLM-as-a-judge and human evaluation. Across 21,000 multi-turn conversations from four widely used models (gpt-4o, gpt-4.1-mini, claude-sonnet-4.6, gemini-2.5-flash), we find that human-like behaviors are pervasive but vary across models and user factors (conversation goals and user profiles). In terms of perceived appropriateness, human evaluators judged self-referential and relationship-building behaviors as less appropriate from LLMs than from humans, but boundary-maintaining behaviors more appropriate from LLMs than from humans. Finally, we show that system prompting can control these behaviors, though it requires careful evaluation to avoid unintended effects. We discuss the implications of our findings and provide recommendations for responsible LLM design and evaluation.

Related papers

• Teaching Values to Machines: Simulating Human-Like Behavior in LLMs [9.380468624733123]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate a remarkable capacity to adopt different personas and roles.<n>It remains unclear whether they can manifest behavior that adheres to a coherent, human-like value structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T14:56:21Z)
• Evaluating LLM-Simulated Conversations in Modeling Inconsistent and Uncollaborative Behaviors in Human Social Interaction [21.123771789383323]
  Simulating human conversations using large language models (LLMs) has emerged as a scalable methodology for modeling human social interaction.<n>We introduce CoCoEval, an evaluation framework that analyzes LLM-simulated conversations by detecting 10 types of inconsistent and uncollaborative behaviors.<n>Our analysis shows that under vanilla prompting, LLM-simulated conversations exhibit far fewer inconsistent and uncollaborative behaviors than human conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-17T19:29:50Z)
• Evaluating Alignment of Behavioral Dispositions in LLMs [15.282965130762648]
  We focus on behavioral dispositions that shape responses in social contexts.<n>We introduce a framework to study how closely the dispositions expressed by LLMs align with those of humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T19:59:12Z)
• HumanLLM: Towards Personalized Understanding and Simulation of Human Nature [72.55730315685837]
  HumanLLM is a foundation model designed for personalized understanding and simulation of individuals.<n>We first construct the Cognitive Genome, a large-scale corpus curated from real-world user data on platforms like Reddit, Twitter, Blogger, and Amazon.<n>We then formulate diverse learning tasks and perform supervised fine-tuning to empower the model to predict a wide range of individualized human behaviors, thoughts, and experiences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T09:27:27Z)
• Social Simulations with Large Language Model Risk Utopian Illusion [61.358959720048354]
  We introduce a systematic framework for analyzing large language models' behavior in social simulation.<n>Our approach simulates multi-agent interactions through chatroom-style conversations and analyzes them across five linguistic dimensions.<n>Our findings reveal that LLMs do not faithfully reproduce genuine human behavior but instead reflect overly idealized versions of it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T06:08:41Z)
• Evaluating & Reducing Deceptive Dialogue From Language Models with Multi-turn RL [64.3268313484078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with millions of people worldwide in applications such as customer support, education and healthcare.<n>Their ability to produce deceptive outputs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, poses significant safety concerns.<n>We investigate the extent to which LLMs engage in deception within dialogue, and propose the belief misalignment metric to quantify deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:29:36Z)
• How large language models judge and influence human cooperation [82.07571393247476]
  We assess how state-of-the-art language models judge cooperative actions.<n>We observe a remarkable agreement in evaluating cooperation against good opponents.<n>We show that the differences revealed between models can significantly impact the prevalence of cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T09:14:42Z)
• LLM Agents Display Human Biases but Exhibit Distinct Learning Patterns [0.0]
  We investigate the choice patterns of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the context of Decisions from Experience tasks.<n>We find that on the aggregate, LLMs appear to display behavioral biases similar to humans.<n>However, more nuanced analyses of the choice patterns reveal that this happens for very different reasons.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-13T10:47:03Z)
• Can Machines Think Like Humans? A Behavioral Evaluation of LLM-Agents in Dictator Games [7.504095239018173]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents increasingly undertake real-world tasks and engage with human society.<n>We investigate how different personas and experimental framings affect these AI agents' altruistic behavior in dictator games.<n>We show that assigning a human-like identity to LLMs does not produce human-like behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T17:47:41Z)
• Explaining Large Language Models Decisions Using Shapley Values [1.223779595809275]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened up exciting possibilities for simulating human behavior and cognitive processes. However, the validity of utilizing LLMs as stand-ins for human subjects remains uncertain. This paper presents a novel approach based on Shapley values to interpret LLM behavior and quantify the relative contribution of each prompt component to the model's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T22:49:43Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• Revisiting the Reliability of Psychological Scales on Large Language Models [62.57981196992073]
  This study aims to determine the reliability of applying personality assessments to Large Language Models. Analysis of 2,500 settings per model, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini-Pro, and LLaMA-3.1, reveals that various LLMs show consistency in responses to the Big Five Inventory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T15:03:28Z)

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.