# Human-like moral judgments conceal divergent motive attributions in large language models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.07353 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.07353/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 36 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models Fail on Trivial Alterations to Theory-of-Mind Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.08399/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models in Theory of Mind Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.02083/) (2023)
- [Large language models that replace human participants can harmfully misportray and flatten identity groups](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01908/) (2024)
- [Six Fallacies in Substituting Large Language Models for Human Participants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04470/) (2024)
- [The threat of analytic flexibility in using large language models to simulate human data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.13397/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are used to simulate human participants in psychological research. We asked whether LLMs that reproduce human evaluations of a whistleblower's moral character also reproduce the motive attributions that accompany them. Five LLMs and two human samples (N = 125 and N = 742) evaluated a physician who either remained silent about fraudulent billing or reported it to a hospital, regulator, or newspaper. Models reproduced the human ranking of the physician's moral character but portrayed whistleblowers as more helpful, less self-interested, and less hostile. In four of five models, competitive motives were less strongly associated with moral-character judgments. Model ratings changed little when prompts reproduced the narratives and demographic profiles of both human samples, although this comparison cannot isolate a perspective effect. Thus, agreement in average ratings can conceal differences in attributed motives, relationships among judgments, and sensitivity to context. Validating LLMs as simulated participants therefore requires testing psychologically informative response patterns, not average agreement alone.