Human Values Matter: Investigating How Misalignment Shapes Collective Behaviors in LLM Agent Communities

Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are increasingly used as proxies for human participants in social science research, yet it remains unclear whether they can faithfully simulate diverse and conflicting human value systems. We present a World Values Survey (WVS)-grounded simulation framework where culturally diverse agents with different communication styles engage in longitudinal, value-laden discussions. Across approximately 4,000 conversations involving 1,200 personas, 15 topics, and three models (GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5-Flash, and Gemma-4-E4B), we evaluate value faithfulness, value drift, and conversational realism. We find that more than 50% of personas fail to express their assigned WVS profiles from the outset, while 2-7% drift after repeated conversations. Ablations removing demographic details improve faithfulness for some models but do not change the broader trend: simulated value distributions still systematically deviate from the assigned WVS profiles. Compared to human discussions, simulated dialogues show a different trade-off between stylistic consistency and semantic diversity, often producing content-wise varied but stylistically repetitive exchanges. These findings suggest that current LLM agents can generate plausible conversations, but remain limited proxies for representing and preserving diverse human value profiles over time.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly acting as human delegates in multi-agent environments, where a representative agent integrates diverse peer perspectives to make a final decision. Drawing inspiration from social psychology, we investigate how the reliability of this representative agent is undermined by the social context of its network. We define four key phenomena-social conformity, perceived expertise, dominant speaker effect, and rhetorical persuasion-and systematically manipulate the number of adversaries, relative intelligence, argument length, and argumentative styles. Our experiments demonstrate that the representative agent's accuracy consistently declines as social pressure increases: larger adversarial groups, more capable peers, and longer arguments all lead to significant performance degradation. Furthermore, rhetorical strategies emphasizing credibility or logic can further sway the agent's judgment, depending on the context. These findings reveal that multi-agent systems are sensitive not only to individual reasoning but also to the social dynamics of their configuration, highlighting critical vulnerabilities in AI delegates that mirror the psychological biases observed in human group decision-making.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as agents in simulations of social systems, yet it remains unclear when their behavior can be interpreted as a faithful proxy for human decision-making. Here we test LLM agents against a direct empirical benchmark: a large-scale networked Prisoner's Dilemma experiment with human participants. Using the same interaction protocol, payoff structure, and network topologies, we compare nine open-weight LLMs with the human data. The selected model reproduces several macro-level features of cooperation dynamics, including the early decline and later stabilization of cooperation. This aggregate agreement, however, does not extend uniformly to finer levels of behavior. LLM populations underestimate individual-level heterogeneity and generate conditional cooperation patterns that differ from those observed in humans. Adding a fraction of random agents improves some aspects of micro-level agreement, but does not remove the mismatch in decision rules. These findings reveal a macro--micro dissociation in LLM-based social agents: collective outcomes can appear human-like even when the underlying behavioral distributions and mechanisms are not. They suggest that validating LLM agents as human surrogates requires comparisons across aggregate dynamics, individual heterogeneity, and context-dependent decision rules, rather than outcome-level agreement alone.