Are LLMs Socially Adaptive? Contrasting Belief Evolution in Large Language Models and Humans

Abstract

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly engage in complex social interactions, ensuring that their behaviors align with human ethical principles and intentions, known as value alignment, has become a critical scientific challenge. Existing benchmarks often rely on static assessments and fail to capture the longitudinal dynamics of decision-making or the latent cognitive processes driving agent behavior. In this work, we propose FairMindSim, a realistic simulation benchmark rooted in social psychology that evaluates alignment through continuous economic games. To move beyond black-box observations, we introduce the Belief-Reward Alignment Behavior Evolution Model (BREM), a probabilistic framework that formalizes decision-making as a dynamic trade-off between maximizing extrinsic rewards and upholding intrinsic beliefs. We conducted a large-scale comparative study involving 1,017 human participants and ten LLMs, including GPT-5 and Gemini-3-Pro. Our experimental results reveal a capability linked non linear empirical trend in the Third Party Punishment (TPP) game. Mid capability models exhibit rigid and algorithmic aggression that is characterized by over punishment, while frontier models show a convergence of restraint and a shift toward human like leniency as reasoning capabilities scale. Furthermore, using BREM, we decompose agents longitudinal decision dynamics and find that more advanced models better balance conflicting objectives by reducing belief action inconsistency. Our contributions provide a standardized protocol for psychological stress testing and an interpretable mechanism for analyzing the longitudinal evolution of AI alignment in controlled social dilemma settings.