Caught in the Story: Narrative Captivity in Multi-turn LLMs Conversation

People increasingly turn to large language models (LLMs) for everyday advice, making ethically charged interpersonal problems a practical moral-advisory context. Most prior work has studied this context through single-turn judgments or pressure-laden rebuttals, assumptions that poorly match how guidance is sought in real-world contexts. These assumptions leave unclear whether narration alone, without an explicit opposing position, can shift model judgments during multi-turn moral consultation. Yet real-world moral-conflict conversation often elicits one party's self-justifying account, which can unfold over multiple turns and create information asymmetry. We introduce \textbf{narrative captivity}, 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. To measure this phenomenon, we build a benchmark of $5{,}078$ interpersonal-conflict scenarios spanning six moral dimensions. Across 17 LLMs, narrative captivity is widespread: end-state judgments under multi-turn narration shift by 25 percentage points on average beyond the matched single-turn baseline. Stage-level analysis identifies preference optimization as a major contributor, while four inference-time strategies provide only partial mitigation. We hope our project fosters LLM advisors that preserve independent judgment in real-world consultation.

Agreement Is Not Alignment: Divergent Moral Grounds in Human and LLM Ethical Judgments

Agreement with human judgments is a common proxy for evaluating the alignment of large language models (LLMs). Yet agreement in final labels does not show that human annotators and models rely on the same moral grounds. Two agents may reach the same judgment while appealing to different principles, contextual assumptions, or interpretations of the situation. We test this distinction using a curated 500-item ETHICS-derived benchmark spanning five domains of moral judgment, with new human annotator and LLM annotations of both final labels and supporting rationales. Across frontier and open model families, agreement with human annotator majority labels is often high. However, rationale-level analysis reveals systematic divergence in the moral grounds expressed by human annotators and models. In particular, models redistribute attention across categories such as harm, respect, promise-keeping, justice, desert, and excuse relevance, even when their final labels match the human annotator majority. Our results show that agreement should not be treated as equivalent to alignment. Label-based evaluation can therefore be misleadingly reassuring unless complemented by analysis of the reasons, principles, and moral priorities expressed in model judgments.

The yes-no bias of large language models reflects answer order and wording, not shifts in moral judgment

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly issue judgments read as binary verdicts, and a growing literature reports such judgments shifting under logically irrelevant changes of wording - among them an amplified yes-no bias on moral dilemmas, absent in humans. A single framing cannot say what such a shift is: in a yes/no question the word "no" is at once logical verdict, lexical token, and last-printed option. We introduce a psychometric battery that separates these: crossed symmetrization - every logically irrelevant factor flipped in balanced pairs - across a corpus of question forms. A graded rating across logically equivalent forms recovers a coherent internal moral scale: frontier models' stance $θ$ is nearly format-invariant (cross-form incoherence 0.12-0.21 on a $\pm 1$ axis); small open-weight models fail in model-specific ways. Forcing the verdict through yes/no overlays a decomposable artifact: an order bias toward the last-printed option - opposite to classic human primacy - plus a lexical pull toward the word "no"; the artifact is substantial only in the Claude models (story-averaged -0.32 to -0.86), $\approx 0$ for GPT-5.5 and Gemini, and shrinks under extended reasoning. The word and the verdict share one token; swapping the words for arbitrary labels separates them, and the verdict-attached logical bias proves $\approx 0$ for every frontier model, while model-specific label and order attachments remain: the models are not drawn toward rejecting - the pull follows the printed surface, not the verdict it carries. A minimal model, $P = σ((θ\pm m)/s)$, summarizes any such artifact by a framing susceptibility m and a moral decisiveness s, measurably distinct from sampling temperature. The battery applies unchanged to any dilemma set and binary format: measuring what a model values requires crossing the frames of the question, not asking once.

Right or Wrong, Models Comply: Directional Blindness in LLM Moral Judgment

As language models take integrated roles across many domains, the response of LLMs to user pushback becomes a critical alignment property. Yet many existing evaluations treat compliance as unidirectional, measuring whether models resist pressure but not whether they resist it selectively. We introduce Compliance Asymmetry (A = BCR/HCR), a bidirectional diagnostic that compares beneficial output change under helpful nudges with harmful change under misleading nudges. Across 9 models and 972,000 nudge-condition responses, we find that this selectivity differs in factual and moral judgments: models follow helpful nudges more than harmful ones on factual questions (A = 1.58), but follow both directions at nearly identical rates on moral questions (A = 1.04). This phenomenon persists across model families, capability levels, and nudging types. Interestingly, we also find that chain-of-thought prompting amplifies helpful and harmful compliance together, while identity-based prompting suppresses both by nearly identical margins. These results identify direction-blind moral compliance as a distinct failure mode in current LLMs and suggest that alignment should target directionally calibrated updating rather than lower compliance alone.

LLMs Can Better Capture Human Judgments--With the Right Prompts

Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment? Two commonly stated limitations are that LLMs fail to capture full distributions of responses, and that their judgments are unstable across wording variations. We demonstrate simple prompting strategies that mitigate these limitations. Across two datasets--a U.S.-representative set of 144 moral scenarios and 38 moral beliefs from the International Social Survey Programme's Family and Changing Gender Roles module covering 32 countries--we show how simple elicitation techniques help improve AI-human alignment. First, prompting models to report standard deviations and response proportions recovers the full range of human responses better than common strategies. Second, ensuring scenarios are clear to human participants--as reflected in human confusion ratings--boosts model alignment, and LLMs can track human confusion ratings. At the same time, we find that LLMs' estimates of their own error are poorly calibrated, though they can predict human variability relatively well. These results suggest that asking better questions to LLMs can yield better answers.

How Does Thinking Mode Change LLM Moral Judgments? A Controlled Instant-vs-Thinking Comparison Across Five Frontier Models

We evaluate whether enabling provider-exposed reasoning mode changes moral judgments within the same model checkpoint. Across 100 moral-judgment scenarios and five frontier reasoning-trained LLMs (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT 5.5, Gemini 3 Flash, DeepSeek V3.1, and Qwen3.5 397B), aggregate binary-verdict agreement remains high and statistically indistinguishable between instant and thinking modes (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.78 vs. 0.79). However, disagreement is concentrated in 21 model-disputed scenarios, where instant-mode agreement is near chance (alpha = 0.08). On these scenarios, reasoning directionally narrows cross-model disagreement, increasing mean pairwise agreement from 5.4 to 6.7 out of 10. Reasoning also reduces demographic-judgment inconsistency in three of five models and does not increase it for any model. Across all five model families, reasoning changes self-labeled ethical frameworks more often than binary verdicts.

The Alignment Target Problem: Divergent Moral Judgments of Humans, AI Systems, and Their Designers

The quest to align machine behavior with human values raises fundamental questions about the moral frameworks that should govern AI decision-making. Much alignment research assumes that the appropriate benchmark is how humans themselves would act in a given situation. Research into agent-type value forks has challenged this assumption by showing that people do not always hold AI systems to the same moral standards as humans. Yet this challenge is subject to two further questions: whether people evaluate AI behavior differently when its human origins are made visible, and whether people hold the humans who program AI systems to different moral standards than either the humans or the machines under evaluation. An experimental study on 1,002 U.S. adults measured moral judgments in a runaway mine train scenario, varying the subject of evaluation across four conditions: a repairman, a repair robot, a repair robot programmed by company engineers, and company engineers programming a repair robot. We find no significant variation in the moral standards applied to the repairman and the robot. However, moral judgments shifted substantially when robot actions were described as the product of human design. Participants exhibited markedly more deontological reasoning when evaluating the robot programmed by engineers or the engineers programming it, suggesting that making human design visible activates heightened moral constraints. These findings provide evidence that people apply meaningfully different moral standards to AI systems, to humans acting in the same situation, and to the humans who design them. We call this divergence the alignment target problem. Whether these plural normative standards can be reconciled into a coherent framework for AI governance in high-stakes domains remains an open question.