arXiv:2609.22090v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An LLM producing the response pattern associated with a human psychological effect is not the same claim as the LLM possessing that bias. We present PsyAgentBench, a benchmark that re-runs classic psychology experiments on LLM agents under a factorial design built to separate these: each paradigm is run with the paradigm explicitly labeled in the prompt (named) or framed as a routine task (blind), and on the literal textbook version of the task (canonical) or a structurally matched variant written to reduce lexical and scenario overlap with likely training data (counterfactual), crossed with a persona manipulation. Across five completed paradigms, evaluated on up to three open-weight model families with 41,904 trials released, apparently human-like effects arise through qualitatively different routes rather than one susceptibility: paradigm-label gating with explicit override (Asch conformity, 0 percent blind to 83.3 percent named on gpt-oss-120B), knowledge-dependent signal reliance (anchoring, exactly zero on grounded facts versus near total on invented quantities, a pattern equally consistent with rational use of the only available signal), amplification on novel content under labeling (framing), robust absence (sunk cost), and safety-mediated selection where refusal itself is the primary finding (minimal-group allocation). A one-sentence persona change (agreeableness, framed as an instruction rather than a verified trait manipulation) eliminates, dampens, or reverses these effects depending on which effect it is, arguing against any single response-bias account. We further formalize, and in two cases document empirically, three ways a psychology paradigm can fail to port to LLM agents: persona dominance, population collapse, and safety selection. We argue scalar bias-susceptibility scores obscure this structure and report replication profiles instead.
Beyond Accuracy and Surface Fluency: Risk-Sensitive Evaluation of LLMs for Legal Clause Generation