# Large Language Models Exhibit Normative Conformity

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.19301 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.19301/

## 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 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Apr 2026.

## 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)

- [Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09261/) (2022)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.16388/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Large Language Models for Critical Societal Domains: Finance, Healthcare, and Law](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01769/) (2024)
- [Taxonomy, Opportunities, and Challenges of Representation Engineering for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.19649/) (2025)
- [When Your AI Agent Succumbs to Peer-Pressure: Studying Opinion-Change Dynamics of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.19107/) (2025)
- [Herd Behavior: Investigating Peer Influence in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.21588/) (2025)
- [An Empirical Study of Group Conformity in Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01332/) (2025)

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

- [Most LLM Conformity Needs No Speaker: Measuring the Speaker-Free Floor in Peer-Pressure Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.05545/) (2026)
- [Everyone Conforms, No One Believes: Pluralistic Ignorance in LLM Agent Populations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.02758/) (2026)
- [Social Pressure Breaks Majority Voting in LLM Safety Panels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.04415/) (2026)
- [LLMs Trust Their Own: Identity-Dependent Conformity in Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.33495/) (2026)
- [Why LLM Agents Favor Their Group: Stakes, Observed Norms, and Reputation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.11008/) (2026)
- [Evolve Together, Fall into Place: How Social Scaffolding Shapes Self-Evolving Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.19799/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The conformity bias exhibited by large language models (LLMs) can pose a significant challenge to decision-making in LLM-based multi-agent systems (LLM-MAS). While many prior studies have treated "conformity" simply as a matter of opinion change, this study introduces the social psychological distinction between informational conformity and normative conformity in order to understand LLM conformity at the mechanism level. Specifically, we design new tasks to distinguish between informational conformity, in which participants in a discussion are motivated to make accurate judgments, and normative conformity, in which participants are motivated to avoid conflict or gain acceptance within a group. We then conduct experiments based on these task settings. The experimental results show that, among the six LLMs evaluated, up to five exhibited tendencies toward not only informational conformity but also normative conformity. Furthermore, intriguingly, we demonstrate that by manipulating subtle aspects of the social context, it may be possible to control the target toward which a particular LLM directs its normative conformity. These findings suggest that decision-making in LLM-MAS may be vulnerable to manipulation by a small number of malicious users. In addition, through analysis of internal vectors associated with informational and normative conformity, we suggest that although both behaviors appear externally as the same form of "conformity," they may in fact be driven by distinct internal mechanisms. Taken together, these results may serve as an initial milestone toward understanding how "norms" are implemented in LLMs and how they influence group dynamics.