# Right or Wrong, Models Comply: Directional Blindness in LLM Moral Judgment

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.14037 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.14037/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 18 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.00861/) (2021)
- [Aligning AI With Shared Human Values](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.02275/) (2020)
- [Social Chemistry 101: Learning to Reason about Social and Moral Norms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.00620/) (2020)
- [Evaluating the Moral Beliefs Encoded in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.14324/) (2023)
- [Can Machines Learn Morality? The Delphi Experiment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.07574/) (2021)
- [Moral Stories: Situated Reasoning about Norms, Intents, Actions, and their Consequences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.15738/) (2020)
- [The Earth is Flat because...: Investigating LLMs' Belief towards Misinformation via Persuasive Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.09085/) (2023)
- [When Your AI Agent Succumbs to Peer-Pressure: Studying Opinion-Change Dynamics of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.19107/) (2025)
- [Persuasion Dynamics in LLMs: Investigating Robustness and Adaptability in Knowledge and Safety with DuET-PD](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.17450/) (2025)
- [A Closer Look at Bias and Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness of Large (Vision) Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23945/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Moral Beliefs across LLMs through a Pluralistic Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.03665/) (2024)
- [Moral Persuasion in Large Language Models: Evaluating Susceptibility and Ethical Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.11731/) (2024)
- [The Fragility Of Moral Judgment In Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.05651/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Anatomy of LLM Sycophancy: What a Flip Rate Hides](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.06522/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As language models take integrated roles across many domains, the response of LLMs to user pushback becomes a critical alignment property. Yet many existing evaluations treat compliance as unidirectional, measuring whether models resist pressure but not whether they resist it selectively. We introduce Compliance Asymmetry (A = BCR/HCR), a bidirectional diagnostic that compares beneficial output change under helpful nudges with harmful change under misleading nudges. Across 9 models and 972,000 nudge-condition responses, we find that this selectivity differs in factual and moral judgments: models follow helpful nudges more than harmful ones on factual questions (A = 1.58), but follow both directions at nearly identical rates on moral questions (A = 1.04). This phenomenon persists across model families, capability levels, and nudging types. Interestingly, we also find that chain-of-thought prompting amplifies helpful and harmful compliance together, while identity-based prompting suppresses both by nearly identical margins. These results identify direction-blind moral compliance as a distinct failure mode in current LLMs and suggest that alignment should target directionally calibrated updating rather than lower compliance alone.