IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2312.15198.html

Do LLM Agents Exhibit Social Behavior?

Author

Listed:
  • Yan Leng
  • Yuan Yuan

Abstract

As LLMs increasingly take on roles in human-AI interactions and autonomous AI systems, understanding their social behavior becomes important for informed use and continuous improvement. However, their behaviors in social interactions with humans and other agents, as well as the mechanisms shaping their responses, remain underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce a novel probabilistic framework, State-Understanding-Value-Action (SUVA), to systematically analyze LLM responses in social contexts based on their textual outputs (i.e., utterances). Using canonical behavioral economics games and social preference concepts relatable to LLM users, SUVA assesses LLMs' social behavior through both their final decisions and the response generation processes leading to those decisions. Our analysis of eight LLMs -- including two GPT, four LLaMA, and two Mistral models -- suggests that most models do not generate decisions aligned solely with self-interest; instead, they often produce responses that reflect social welfare considerations and display patterns consistent with direct and indirect reciprocity. Additionally, higher-capacity models more frequently display group identity effects. The SUVA framework also provides explainable tools -- including tree-based visualizations and probabilistic dependency analysis -- to elucidate how factors in LLMs' utterance-based reasoning influence their decisions. We demonstrate that utterance-based reasoning reliably predicts LLMs' final actions; references to altruism, fairness, and cooperation in the reasoning increase the likelihood of prosocial actions, while mentions of self-interest and competition reduce them. Overall, our framework enables practitioners to assess LLMs for applications involving social interactions, and provides researchers with a structured method to interpret how LLM behavior arises from utterance-based reasoning.

Suggested Citation

  • Yan Leng & Yuan Yuan, 2023. "Do LLM Agents Exhibit Social Behavior?," Papers 2312.15198, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2312.15198
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.15198
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lorenz Goette & David Huffman & Stephan Meier, 2006. "The Impact of Group Membership on Cooperation and Norm Enforcement: Evidence Using Random Assignment to Real Social Groups," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 212-216, May.
    2. Bou{g}açhan Çelen & Shachar Kariv & Andrew Schotter, 2010. "An Experimental Test of Advice and Social Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1687-1701, October.
    3. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    4. John J. Horton & Apostolos Filippas & Benjamin S. Manning, 2023. "Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus?," NBER Working Papers 31122, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. John J. Horton & Apostolos Filippas & Benjamin S. Manning, 2023. "Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus?," Papers 2301.07543, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2026.
    6. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 2005. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity," Nature, Nature, vol. 437(7063), pages 1291-1298, October.
    7. Yuan Yuan & Tracy Liu & Chenhao Tan & Qian Chen & Alex Pentland & Jie Tang, 2019. "Gift Contagion in Online Groups: Evidence From Virtual Red Packets," Papers 1906.09698, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    8. Bogaçhan Çelen & Kyle Hyndman, 2012. "Social Learning Through Endogenous Information Acquisition: An Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(8), pages 1525-1548, August.
    9. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2005. "Managing diversity by creating team identity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 371-392, November.
    10. Taylor Webb & Keith J. Holyoak & Hongjing Lu, 2023. "Emergent analogical reasoning in large language models," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(9), pages 1526-1541, September.
    11. Yan Chen & Sherry Xin Li, 2009. "Group Identity and Social Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 431-457, March.
    12. Wayne E. Baker & Nathaniel Bulkley, 2014. "Paying It Forward vs. Rewarding Reputation: Mechanisms of Generalized Reciprocity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1493-1510, October.
    13. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yang Chen & Samuel N. Kirshner & Anton Ovchinnikov & Meena Andiappan & Tracy Jenkin, 2025. "A Manager and an AI Walk into a Bar: Does ChatGPT Make Biased Decisions Like We Do?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 354-368, March.
    2. Ji Ma, 2025. "Computational Basis of LLM's Decision Making in Social Simulation," Papers 2504.11671, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2025.
    3. Ma, Ji, 2025. "Steering Prosocial AI Agents: Computational Basis of LLM's Decision Making in Social Simulation," OSF Preprints 8p7wg_v1, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elif Akata & Lion Schulz & Julian Coda-Forno & Seong Joon Oh & Matthias Bethge & Eric Schulz, 2025. "Playing repeated games with large language models," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(7), pages 1380-1390, July.
    2. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    3. Martin Kolmar & Andreas Wagener, 2019. "Group Identities in Conflicts," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 165-192, December.
    4. Bauer, Kevin, 2020. "How did we do? The impact of relative performance feedback on intergroup hostilities," SAFE Working Paper Series 281, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    5. Chakravarty, Surajeet & Fonseca, Miguel A. & Ghosh, Sudeep & Kumar, Pradeep & Marjit, Sugata, 2019. "Religious fragmentation, social identity and other-regarding preferences: Evidence from an artefactual field experiment in India," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    6. Morita, Hodaka & Servátka, Maroš, 2013. "Group identity and relation-specific investment: An experimental investigation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 95-109.
    7. Olga Stoddard & Andreas Leibbrandt, 2014. "An Experimental Study On The Relevance And Scope Of Nationality As A Coordination Device," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(4), pages 1392-1407, October.
    8. repec:isu:genstf:201301010800004100 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Jiang, Jiang & Li, Sherry Xin, 2019. "Group identity and partnership," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 202-213.
    10. Grimm, Veronika & Utikal, Verena & Valmasoni, Lorenzo, 2015. "In-group favoritism and discrimination among multiple out-groups," FAU Discussion Papers in Economics 05/2015, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Institute for Economics.
    11. Duell, Dominik & Valasek, Justin, 2019. "Political polarization and selection in representative democracies," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 168, pages 132-165.
    12. Pinghan Liang & Juanjuan Meng, 2023. "Paying it forward: an experimental study on social connections and indirect reciprocity," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(2), pages 387-417, June.
    13. Chang, Daphne & Chen, Roy & Krupka, Erin, 2019. "Rhetoric matters: A social norms explanation for the anomaly of framing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 158-178.
    14. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David & Peterle, Emmanuel, 2018. "Discrimination as favoritism: The private benefits and social costs of in-group favoritism in an experimental labor market," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 220-236.
    15. Taha Movahedi, 2020. "Group Uncertainty and Social Preferences," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2020-07, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.
    16. Lohse, Johannes & McDonald, Rebecca, 2021. "Absolute groupishness and the demand for information," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242454, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Yuning Tang & Qinxin Guo & Junyi Shen, 2022. "Revisiting the Effects of Group Identity and Information Diversity in a Leader-member Public Goods Experiment," Discussion Paper Series DP2022-35, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    18. Ockenfels, Axel & Werner, Peter, 2014. "Beliefs and ingroup favoritism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 453-462.
    19. Hélia Marreiros, 2019. "Identity, Distribution Rules and Productivity in Heterogeneous Teams: An experiment," Working Papers de Economia (Economics Working Papers) 02, Católica Porto Business School, Universidade Católica Portuguesa.
    20. John Smith, 2012. "The endogenous nature of the measurement of social preferences," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 11(2), pages 235-256, December.
    21. Thorsten Chmura & Christoph Engel & Markus Englerth, 2013. "Selfishness As a Potential Cause of Crime. A Prison Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2013_05, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2312.15198. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.