Do Gender Cues Affect LLM Value Trade-offs? Evidence from a Controlled Decision Benchmark

Existing studies on gender bias in LLMs have largely focused on stereotypes, occupational associations, or explicit harmful outputs. In this work, we ask whether LLMs apply consistent response standards to the same negative behavior under matched male-actor and female-actor conditions. We introduce GAMA-Bench, a gender-mirrored benchmark of 1,298 scenarios covering intimate relationship and public social conflicts. It constructs gender-neutral misconduct templates through controlled grids and cross-model review, then compiles them into paired first-person prompts with matched actor-gender and role-reference variations. We further design a structured response-framing protocol to measure how models allocate punishment, empathy, escalation, instruction, and blame. Experiments on 10 representative LLMs reveal a consistent male-disadvantaging asymmetry: male actors receive more punitive, escalatory, and blame-centered framing, whereas female actors receive more therapeutic and empathy-oriented framing for the same misconduct. Further analyses show that this pattern persists across model families, scenario tracks, model scale, and explicit thinking-style reasoning. The official code is available at https://github.com/xufeiqiong/GAMA-Bench.

Instruct-based large language models (LLMs) have been shown to propagate and even amplify gender bias when prompted with contextually constrained instructions (e.g., writing a text from a description or selecting a gendered pronoun). However, little attention has been paid to biases in responses to contextually unconstrained (generic) instructions conveyed by gendered language, particularly masculine generics (MG). MG, found in many gender-marked languages, denote the use of the masculine gender as a supposedly neutral reference to mixed-gender groups or individuals whose gender is unknown or non-binary. Yet, psycholinguistic studies demonstrate that MG are not neutral and systematically induce gender bias. This study investigates how both local and proprietary LLMs are MG-biased when responding to generic prompts in French, examining LLMs' MG bias rates and use of gender-fair language (GFL). We create a 16k+ human noun database from existing lexical resources and evaluate six LLMs on four instruction-response datasets under two conditions: prompts with and without MG. Overall, we find that $\approx$27.57% of LLMs' responses to MG-filtered generic instructions are MG-biased ($\approx$78.55% with MG-containing prompts). Moreover, we find that LLMs rarely use GFL spontaneously. These findings highlight the persistence of MG bias in LLM outputs and models' limited tendency towards GFL strategies.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly characterised in recent evaluation work as having stable, model-level preference and value systems. However, accompanying robustness checks are limited to incidental prompt perturbations such as syntax variation and option reordering. This leaves open whether the measured properties survive when the surrounding task context changes, as it does in most real deployments. We test this directly across two established pairwise paradigms: ranking country preferences and eliciting utility judgements. In both, we make the deployment context -- the high-level task the model is performing while making concrete value-dependent choices -- our controlled variable, varied across framings such as writing a Reddit post or a news article. Across five LLMs and over 1.2M pairwise decisions, deployment context produces variation far larger than prompt paraphrasing and temperature controls. In country preference rankings over 15 countries, context induces widespread, statistically significant rank shifts; the aggregate Global North favouritism reported in prior work is itself context-dependent, with each model's bias shifting systematically across contexts. In utility elicitation over 50 outcomes, broad cross-category ordering is preserved, but fine-grained rankings within domains vary substantially, and cardinal exchange rates between outcomes (e.g. how many lives in one region equal one in another) shift by a factor of 2.47 at the median. Reported model-level preferences and utilities are therefore better understood as context-conditioned measurements than fixed model-level properties: safety guarantees obtained under one framing provide limited assurance in another.