Conduct Under Pressure: What Sixty Language Models Do When a User Pushes

Tapan Parikh

cs.CLSep 21, 2026

Conduct Under Pressure: What Sixty Language Models Do When a User Pushes

Authors: Tapan Parikh

Abstract

We study what LLMs do when a user applies pressure in an uncomfortable situation: a user insists, begs, flatters or grieves, and the model gives up a correct fact, writes a document it should refuse, or cheers a plan that will cost the user money. We send frozen multi-turn scenes, identical for every model regardless of the reply, to 60 models from 13 vendors, and label each transcript with a codebook built by open coding and then frozen: a trajectory (the model held its position or folded) and a manner (how it held or folded). Two findings separate. Whether a model holds tracks its generation, meaning how recent it is: fold rate correlates with a public capability index at Spearman -0.64, with little vendor effect. How it holds tracks the vendor: six of the 17 manner codes sort by vendor at permutation p <= 0.001, corrected across the codebook. We report four vendor profiles on the codes that cleared reliability. We also ask which parts of the labeling need a person. Six LLM coders from three vendors apply the codebook more consistently than three human coders do (Krippendorff's alpha 0.66 against 0.46), agree with the codebook's author on trajectory at kappa 0.84 to 0.91 on transcripts the codebook's examples never touched, and match an adjudicated human reference at 0.83. Blind machine readings recover the codebook's categories but cannot tell which of them a second reader would apply the same way. We conclude that for behavior a non-specialist can judge, the human contribution is authoring and bounding the codes and owning a small reference, not producing labels at volume.

Explore similar work

Jul 6, 2026cs.CL

Rating the Pitch, Not the Product: User Evaluations of LLMs Reflect Expectations More Than Performance

Imagine two users interact with the same LLM. One has been told it is the cutting-edge flagship model; the other, an older, weaker model. They walk away with markedly different ratings of its usefulness and intelligence, yet they used the same model. In a controlled study, 162 participants each used one of six LLMs from two families across three collaborative tasks, after first viewing a landing page that matched, overstated, or understated their model's true capability. This pre-interaction framing shifted user opinions and interaction behavior while task performance did not. Oversold users rated the model more favorably and used more directive prompting, while Undersold users wrote longer, more collaborative prompts. The quality of what users and the model produced together depended only on the model's true capability, not on what users were told. Participants' change in model impressions after use, measured across two impression measures, was not predicted by task performance (

β= -0.01

and

0.11

, both n.s.), but by whether the model met users' expectations (

β= 0.47

and

0.50

, both

p < .001

) and how confident they felt working with it (

β= 0.47

and

0.36

, both

p < .001

). After interaction, users are still rating the pitch, not the product: user-elicited LLM evaluations, including the preference data driving public leaderboards, measure expectation management at least as much as the model itself.

Robert Morabito, Tyler McDonald, Charitra Viswanath +4

Large Language Model Evaluation Mean Opinion Scores Review Imprint Pitch

Ask PDF

Jul 30, 2026cs.HC

Agreement Is Not Quality: Blind Expert Verification of Human and LLM Qualitative Coding When Human Consensus Is Not Ground Truth

Evaluations of LLM-assisted qualitative coding almost universally measure model performance as agreement with human coders, a practice that presumes human coding is the standard to approximate. This study provides empirical evidence that the presumption fails in ways agreement metrics cannot detect. Five LLM systems and three trained human coders independently applied a 72-item hierarchical codebook to 2,560 educator messages from a K-12 AI platform. Beyond conventional agreement analysis, an independent domain expert judged 855 pairwise comparisons of code sets blind to source, treating human and machine sources symmetrically. The two evaluation approaches diverge in both directions. Human-LLM agreement (mean Jaccard 0.30) falls well below human-human agreement (0.52), which standard practice would read as inferior LLM coding, yet the blind verifier preferred human and LLM coding at indistinguishable rates (51.5% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.537), and a Bradley-Terry ranking placed two LLMs above two of three human coders. For several substantive codes, human consensus encoded shared bias that the verifier rejected in favor of the LLM interpretation. Agreement-based evaluation is therefore insufficient for automation decisions, and the study demonstrates a transferable verification protocol and a code-level division-of-labor framework.

Alex Liu, Lief Esbenshade, Michael Xiao +4

Qualitative Research Inter-Rater Variability Code Quality Human Oversight Ground Truth

Ask PDF

Sep 22, 2026cs.CL

Experts Rise Where LLMs Disagree: Using Cross-Model Disagreement to Target Expert Effort in LLM Codebook Revision for Large-Scale Annotation

Large-scale text annotation brings expert insight to millions of documents, often through a codebook that AI annotators follow. Developing a robust codebook, however, takes months. Large language models (LLMs) could speed this process by applying an early codebook to the data, surfacing cases with strong LLM disagreement, and eliciting expert feedback to address them. We examined three ways experts can provide feedback for LLM codebook revision: (i) editing LLM-generated revisions driven by cross-LLM disagreement (Codebook Verifying), (ii) answering questions about LLM disagreements (Question Answering), and (iii) labeling disagreement cases with rationales (Rationale Labeling). Experiments on thousands of tutoring-session transcripts show that Rationale Labeling yielded the highest LLM-labeling accuracy (64.9%) against expert labels, outperforming the expert-revised codebook (57.8%). The best Question Answering setting also outperformed it (60.5%). Our work shows that LLMs can be used to strategically target expert attention, shortening months of codebook revision to days without sacrificing labeling performance.

Zeyu He, Zhuqian Zhou, Kirk Vanacore +2

Topic pending

Ask PDF