# Confident but Conflicted: Internal Uncertainty and Cognitive Dissonance Resolution in LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.22633 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.22633/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 14 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09251/) (2022)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [Cognitive Dissonance: Why Do Language Model Outputs Disagree with Internal Representations of Truthfulness?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.03729/) (2023)
- [Persuasion Dynamics in LLMs: Investigating Robustness and Adaptability in Knowledge and Safety with DuET-PD](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.17450/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) frequently encounter inputs that disagree with their prior outputs, through user pushback, retrieved documents, or web search results. While the way they resolve such conflicts -- a process we frame as cognitive dissonance resolution -- has been characterized behaviorally, its connection to internal model uncertainty is not well understood. To study this systematically, we vary persuasion attempts along two dimensions, source authority and evidence quality, across 12 health-science claims of stratified epistemic status. Dissonance can be resolved through persuasion, backfire, or immunity. We introduce Trust Elasticity (TE), an econometrics-inspired measure of how readily a model is persuaded toward conflicting evidence. Across four LLMs, TE varies substantially, while clearly false claims elicit near-zero TE across all models. On two open-weight models, we further find that this variation is associated with two complementary internal uncertainty indicators, Confidence Miscalibration in Qwen and Internal Uncertainty Change in Llama. These results link cross-model behavioral variation to a measurable internal property and point to interventions targeting internal uncertainty as future work.