Are Large Language Models Sensitive to the Motives Behind Communication?
Addison J. Wu, Ryan Liu, Kerem Oktar, Theodore R. Sumers, Tom Griffiths
Abstract
Human communication is motivated: people speak, write, and create content with a particular communicative intent in mind. As a result, information that large language models (LLMs) and AI agents process is inherently framed by humans'intentions and incentives. People are adept at navigating such nuanced information: we routinely identify benevolent or self-serving motives in order to decide what statements to trust. For LLMs to be effective in the real world, they too must critically evaluate content by factoring in the motivations of the source -- for instance, weighing the credibility of claims made in a sales pitch. In this paper, we undertake a comprehensive study of whether LLMs have this capacity for motivational vigilance. We first employ controlled experiments from cognitive science to verify that LLMs'behavior is consistent with rational models of learning from motivated testimony, and find they successfully discount information from biased sources in a human-like manner. We then extend our evaluation to sponsored online adverts, a more naturalistic reflection of LLM agents'information ecosystems. In these settings, we find that LLMs'inferences do not track the rational models'predictions nearly as closely -- partly due to additional information that distracts them from vigilance-relevant considerations. However, a simple steering intervention that boosts the salience of intentions and incentives substantially increases the correspondence between LLMs and the rational model. These results suggest that LLMs possess a basic sensitivity to the motivations of others, but generalizing to novel real-world settings will require further improvements to these models.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 4370ee5c-8f2b-4024-8515-d7fd92c71e10Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on21
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous AgentsShuyan Zhou, Frank F. Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou et al.ICLR 2024 · 1,197 citations
- Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language ModelsMrinank Sharma, Meg Tong, Tomasz Korbak, David Duvenaud et al.ICLR 2024 · 762 citations
- AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as AgentsXiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu et al.ICLR 2024 · 748 citations
Related papers
- Large Language Model (LLM)-driven Adversarial Social Influences in Online Information Spread: Risks and InterventionsZhuoran Lu, Gionnieve Lim, Ming YinCHI 2026
- Accommodation and Epistemic Vigilance: A Pragmatic Account of Why LLMs Fail to Challenge Harmful BeliefsMyra Cheng, Robert D. Hawkins, Dan JurafskyACL 2026 · 6 citations
- In Agents We Trust, but Who Do Agents Trust? Latent Source Preferences Steer LLM GenerationsMohammad Aflah Khan, Mahsa Amani, Soumi Das, Bishwamittra Ghosh et al.ICLR 2026 · 4 citations
- Label Effects: Shared Heuristic Reliance in Trust Assessment by Humans and LLM-as-a-JudgeXin Sun, Di Wu, Sijing Qin, Isao Echizen et al.ACL 2026 · 2 citations
- How do Large Language Models Navigate Conflicts between Honesty and Helpfulness?Ryan Liu, Theodore R. Sumers, Ishita Dasgupta, Thomas L. GriffithsICML 2024 · 33 citations
