Leon Klingborg | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

Exploit or conform? How norm utility prompting changes the way LLMs use community beliefs

Large Language Models (LLMs) serve both as tools for aiding human decision-making in everyday life and as models of human agents in experimental simulation studies. Alignment on prototypical social decisions -- such as whether to cooperate on a collective action -- therefore has immediate practical consequences for researchers and for society at large. Here we systematically explore the impact of ``norm utility'' -- the non-material components of utility that account for an individual's desire to conform to social norms and to be internally consistent -- on the strategic decision-making of three open-weight LLMs in one-shot, two-player social dilemmas. We find that when a social dilemma is presented together with information about community beliefs -- but without any indication of how those beliefs should matter -- models tend to treat community belief as strategic information, so that in the Snowdrift game cooperation falls as community belief in cooperation increases. When we explicitly prompt the components of norm utility this relationship inverts, and cooperation increases with community belief, in broad agreement with the predictions of a simple norm utility model. We then show that prompting norm utility reduces the volatility of strategic decisions with respect to changes in the underlying social context, and generates more consistent reasoning habits across models. Taken together, our results suggest that prompting norm utility can help generate more human-like and consistent behavior across models and lower volatility within models.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Strategies for preventing and reversing polarized online discourse

Political polarization poses a variety of challenges for modern democracies. Entrenched disagreements on policy can prevent constructive discourse and compromise, and high levels of affective polarization threaten to undermine social cohesion and support for institutions. Finding ways to promote constructive discourse while maintaining free expression has proved a challenge for social media platforms, media outlets and policy makers alike. Here we develop a computational model -- based in psychology -- of online discourse and opinion dynamics under complex individual identities, which we use to assess the capacity of realistic interventions to prevent or reverse polarization. We show that changes to the range of acceptable opinions in a society -- i.e. the Overton window -- have a limited impact on polarization, and that attempts to ``optimize'' the Overton window can even trigger the onset of polarization. In contrast, interventions that shift attention towards under-discussed topics, or increase the costs of violating existing norms, are often effective at preventing polarization, but are less successful at reversing it. Most strikingly, increasing the salience of influential individuals, who model non-polarized discourse, can be highly effective at both preventing and reversing polarization. However we also find that once polarization has set in, even the most successful interventions result in latent extremism when identities are complex. Our work suggests that restricting speech by shrinking the range of acceptable discourse is an ineffective way to tackle polarization, whereas enforcement of existing norms, attention nudges and the presence of elites who model good behavior can be highly effective.

physics.soc-ph↗