These theories support making causal and moral judgments. When something bad happens, we naturally ask: who did what, and why?

Explanations are often promoted as tools for transparency, but they can also foster confirmation bias; users may assume reasoning is correct whenever outputs appear acceptable. We study this double-edged role of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) explanations in multimodal moral scenarios by systematically perturbing reasoning chains and manipulating delivery tones. Specifically, we analyze reasoning errors in vision language models (VLMs) and how they impact user trust and the ability to detect errors. Our findings reveal two key effects: (1) users often equate trust with outcome agreement, sustaining reliance even when reasoning is flawed, and (2) the confident tone suppresses error detection while maintaining reliance, showing that delivery styles can override correctness. These results highlight how CoT explanations can simultaneously clarify and mislead, underscoring the need for NLP systems to provide explanations that encourage scrutiny and critical thinking rather than blind trust. All code will be released publicly.

These theories support making causal and moral judgments. When something bad happens, we naturally ask: who did what, and why?

Large language models implicitly encode preferences over human values, yet steering them often requires large training data. In this work, we investigate a simple approach: Can we reliably modify a model's value system in downstream behavior by training it to answer value survey questions accordingly? We first construct value profiles of several open-source LLMs by asking them to rate a series of value-related descriptions spanning 20 distinct human values, which we use as a baseline for subsequent experiments. We then investigate whether the value system of a model can be governed by fine-tuning on the value surveys. We evaluate the effect of finetuning on the model's behavior in two ways; first, we assess how answers change on in-domain, held-out survey questions. Second, we evaluate whether the model's behavior changes in out-of-domain settings (situational scenarios). To this end, we construct a contextualized moral judgment dataset based on Reddit posts and evaluate changes in the model's behavior in text-based adventure games. We demonstrate that our simple approach can not only change the model's answers to in-domain survey questions, but also produces substantial shifts (value alignment) in implicit downstream task behavior.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have established them as powerful tools across numerous domains. However, persistent concerns about embedded biases, such as gender, racial, and cultural biases arising from their training data, raise significant questions about the ethical use and societal consequences of these technologies. This study investigates the extent to which LLMs capture cross-cultural differences and similarities in moral perspectives. Specifically, we examine whether LLM outputs align with patterns observed in international survey data on moral attitudes. To this end, we employ three complementary methods: (1) comparing variances in moral scores produced by models versus those reported in surveys, (2) conducting cluster alignment analyses to assess correspondence between country groupings derived from LLM outputs and survey data, and (3) directly probing models with comparative prompts using systematically chosen token pairs. Our results reveal that current LLMs often fail to reproduce the full spectrum of cross-cultural moral variation, tending to compress differences and exhibit low alignment with empirical survey patterns. These findings highlight a pressing need for more robust approaches to mitigate biases and improve cultural representativeness in LLMs. We conclude by discussing the implications for the responsible development and global deployment of LLMs, emphasizing fairness and ethical alignment.

People increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for moral advice, which may influence humans' decisions. Yet, little is known about how closely LLMs align with human moral judgments. To address this, we introduce the Moral Dilemma Dataset, a benchmark of 1,618 real-world moral dilemmas paired with a distribution of human moral judgments consisting of a binary evaluation and a free-text rationale. We treat this problem as a pluralistic distributional alignment task, comparing the distributions of LLM and human judgments across dilemmas. We find that models reproduce human judgments only under high consensus; alignment deteriorates sharply when human disagreement increases. In parallel, using a 60-value taxonomy built from 3,783 value expressions extracted from rationales, we show that LLMs rely on a narrower set of moral values than humans. These findings reveal a pluralistic moral gap: a mismatch in both the distribution and diversity of values expressed. To close this gap, we introduce Dynamic Moral Profiling (DMP), a Dirichlet-based sampling method that conditions model outputs on human-derived value profiles. DMP improves alignment by 64.3% and enhances value diversity, offering a step toward more pluralistic and human-aligned moral guidance from LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive moral reasoning abilities. Yet they often diverge when confronted with complex, multi-factor moral dilemmas. To address these discrepancies, we propose a framework that synthesizes multiple LLMs' moral judgments into a collectively formulated moral judgment, realigning models that deviate significantly from this consensus. Our aggregation mechanism fuses continuous moral acceptability scores (beyond binary labels) into a collective probability, weighting contributions by model reliability. For misaligned models, a targeted embedding-optimization procedure fine-tunes token embeddings for moral philosophical theories, minimizing JS divergence to the consensus while preserving semantic integrity. Experiments on a large-scale social moral dilemma dataset show our approach builds robust consensus and improves individual model fidelity. These findings highlight the value of data-driven moral alignment across multiple models and its potential for safer, more consistent AI systems.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in morally sensitive domains, it is crucial to understand how persona traits affect their moral reasoning and persuasive behavior. We present the first large-scale study of multi-dimensional persona effects in AI-AI debates over real-world moral dilemmas. Using a 6-dimensional persona space (age, gender, country, class, ideology, and personality), we simulate structured debates between AI agents over 131 relationship-based cases. Our results show that personas affect initial moral stances and debate outcomes, with political ideology and personality traits exerting the strongest influence. Persuasive success varies across traits, with liberal and open personalities reaching higher consensus and win rates. While logit-based confidence grows during debates, emotional and credibility-based appeals diminish, indicating more tempered argumentation over time. These trends mirror findings from psychology and cultural studies, reinforcing the need for persona-aware evaluation frameworks for AI moral reasoning.