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

Abstract

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.