Recent adoption of conversational information systems has expanded the scope of user queries to include complex tasks such as personal advice-seeking. However, we identify a specific type of sought advice-a request for a moral judgment (i.e. "who was wrong?") in a social conflict-as an implicitly humanizing query which carries potentially harmful anthropomorphic projections. In this study, we examine the reinforcement of these assumptions in the responses of four major general-purpose LLMs through the use of linguistic, behavioral, and cognitive anthropomorphic cues. We also contribute a novel dataset of simulated user queries for moral judgments. We find current LLM system responses reinforce implicit humanization in queries, potentially exacerbating risks like overreliance or misplaced trust. We call for future work to expand the understanding of anthropomorphism to include implicit userside humanization and to design solutions that address user needs while correcting misaligned expectations of model capabilities.
Anthropomorphism in AI studies how people attribute human traits, minds, and social roles to artificial systems, and how design and language shape those perceptions.
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.
Danica Dillion, Chen Cecilia Liu, Baihui Wang +5
Complexity Science Hub, Vienna · The Ohio State University · University of Cambridge +2
A human's moral decision depends heavily on the context. Yet research on LLM morality has largely studied fixed scenarios. We address this gap by introducing Contextual MoralChoice, a dataset of moral dilemmas with systematic contextual variations known from moral psychology to shift human judgment: consequentialist, emotional, and relational. Evaluating 22 LLMs, we find that nearly all models are context-sensitive, shifting their judgments towards rule-violating behavior. Comparing with a human survey, we find that models and humans are most triggered by different contextual variations, and that a model aligned with human judgments in the base case is not necessarily aligned in its contextual sensitivity. This raises the question of controlling contextual sensitivity, which we address with an activation steering approach that can reliably increase or decrease a model's contextual sensitivity. Code and data: https://github.com/adrian-sauter/contextual_moralchoice.
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.