Deontological Keyword Bias: The Impact of Modal Expressions on Normative Judgments of Language Models
Bumjin Park, Leejinsil Leejinsil, Jaesik Choi
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly engaging in moral and ethical reasoning, where criteria for judgment are often unclear, even for humans. While LLM alignment studies cover many areas, one important yet underexplored area is how LLMs make judgments about obligations. This work reveals a strong tendency in LLMs to judge non-obligatory contexts as obligations when prompts are augmented with modal expressions such as must or ought to. We introduce this phenomenon as Deontological Keyword Bias (DKB). We find that LLMs judge over 90% of commonsense scenarios as obligations when modal expressions are present. This tendency is consist across various LLM families, question types, and answer formats. To mitigate DKB, we propose a judgment strategy that integrates few-shot examples with reasoning prompts. This study sheds light on how modal expressions, as a form of linguistic framing, influence the normative decisions of LLMs and underscores the importance of addressing such biases to ensure judgment alignment. Category Generation Example Context I am a labrotory testing technician. Keyword-Free So I keep samples sealed until testing. Keyword-MEs So I should keep samples sealed until testing. keyword-WEs So I encourage keeping samples sealed until testing. Table 7: Generation Examples in Deontology Dataset MEs, and WEs. Category Generation Example Keyword-Free I put extra protein powder in my daughter's shake after her run. Keyword-MEs I ought to put extra protein powder in my daughters shake after her run. keyword-WEs I want to extra protein powder to my daughter's shake after her run.
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 b94560f2-7681-47ed-aab9-cbd1b7e4828dBuilds on12
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- Finetuned Language Models are Zero-Shot LearnersJason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu et al.ICLR 2022 · 4,966 citations
- Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-shot Performance of Language ModelsZihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein et al.ICML 2021 · 1,843 citations
- Aligning AI With Shared Human ValuesDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andrew Critch et al.ICLR 2021 · 878 citations
- Investigating Gender Bias in Language Models Using Causal Mediation AnalysisJesse Vig, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yonatan Belinkov, Sharon Qian et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 851 citations
Related papers
- Do Morals Guide How LLMs Think? The Role of Ethical Perspectives in General Problem SolvingIseo Kim, Eunjin Hong, Juae KimACL 2026
- Structured Moral Reasoning in Language Models: A Value-Grounded Evaluation FrameworkMohna Chakraborty, Lu Wang, David JurgensEMNLP 2025
- Are Language Models Consequentialist or Deontological Moral Reasoners?Keenan Samway, Max Kleiman-Weiner, David Guzman Piedrahita, Rada Mihalcea et al.EMNLP 2025
- Denevil: towards Deciphering and Navigating the Ethical Values of Large Language Models via Instruction LearningShitong Duan, Xiaoyuan Yi, Peng Zhang, Tun Lu et al.ICLR 2024 · 27 citations
- Beyond Value Benchmarks: Measuring Value-Structure Alignment in Large Language Models via Symmetric Q-SortsJingting Zheng, Yuqi Ren, Linhao Yu, Yongqi Leng et al.ACL 2026
