# Evaluating Behavioral Alignment in Conflict Dialogue: A Multi-Dimensional Comparison of LLM Agents and Humans

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.16394 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.16394/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 8 of its 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 Sep 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1310.4546/) (2013)
- [Large Language Models Empowered Agent-based Modeling and Simulation: A Survey and Perspectives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.11970/) (2023)
- [EconAgent: Large Language Model-Empowered Agents for Simulating Macroeconomic Activities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10436/) (2023)
- [How Well Can LLMs Negotiate? NegotiationArena Platform and Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05863/) (2024)
- [EmoBERTa: Speaker-Aware Emotion Recognition in Conversation with RoBERTa](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.12009/) (2021)
- [LLMs with Personalities in Multi-issue Negotiation Games](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.05248/) (2024)
- [KODIS: A Multicultural Dispute Resolution Dialogue Corpus](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12723/) (2025)
- [Plan-Grounded Large Language Models for Dual Goal Conversational Settings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01053/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Social Theory Should Be a Structural Prior for Agentic AI: A Formal Framework for Multi-Agent Social Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.07069/) (2026)
- [Personality Expression Across Contexts: Linguistic and Behavioral Variation in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.01063/) (2026)
- [Why Do LLMs Struggle in Strategic Play? Broken Links Between Observations, Beliefs, and Actions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.00226/) (2026)
- [SoCRATES: Towards Reliable Automated Evaluation of Proactive LLM Mediation across Domains and Socio-cognitive Variations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.05563/) (2026)
- [Aligned but Not Partner-Specific: Distinguishing How Multimodal LLM Agents Succeed in Reference Games Without Human-Like Conventions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.08081/) (2026)
- [From Survey Personas to LLM Agents: A Generative Agent-based Simulation of Mobility Policy Preference Dynamics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.07519/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially complex, interaction-driven tasks, yet their ability to mirror human behavior in emotionally and strategically complex contexts remains underexplored. This study assesses the behavioral alignment of personality-prompted LLMs in adversarial dispute resolution by simulating multi-turn conflict dialogues that incorporate negotiation. Each LLM is guided by a matched Five-Factor personality profile to control for individual variation and enhance realism. We evaluate alignment across three dimensions: linguistic style, emotional expression (e.g., anger dynamics), and strategic behavior. GPT-4.1 achieves the closest alignment with humans in linguistic style and emotional dynamics, while Claude-3.7-Sonnet best reflects strategic behavior. Nonetheless, substantial alignment gaps persist. Our findings establish a benchmark for alignment between LLMs and humans in socially complex interactions, underscoring both the promise and the limitations of personality conditioning in dialogue modeling.