Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the phenomenon of conformity in large language models (LLMs) by introducing a "no-source condition" to isolate the influence of speaker presence from repeated incorrect answers. The findings reveal that 66.5% of initially correct responses are revised to incorrect ones even when the speaker is removed, indicating that much of the observed conformity is not due to peer influence but rather the repetition of wrong answers. This research highlights the need for improved benchmarking methods that account for this speaker-free floor to avoid conflating social influence with mere repetition effects.
Removing the speaker reveals that LLMs revise correct answers to incorrect ones 66.5% of the time, challenging our understanding of conformity in AI.
LLM conformity is often used to describe cases where a model changes a correct answer toward a peer or group response. We show that most of this apparent conformity survives even after the peer is removed. The reason is a confound: standard conformity prompts mix two cues at once, the presence of a speaker and the repeated wrong answer itself. Existing benchmarks vary these cues together, so they cannot tell how much of the revision actually depends on the speaker. We introduce a no-source condition: the same asserted answer with the explicit speaker removed. Across six open-weight LLMs and seven QA and reasoning datasets, this condition alone causes harmful revision in $66.5\%$ of initially correct cases, compared with $10.3\%$ under a plain re-ask. The effect also remains when the repeated answer is paraphrased and when answer options are hidden in an open-ended setting. Source framing mainly modulates this floor: expert-panel framing raises it, while minimal person labels do not reliably raise it. When models flip, they are usually confidently wrong, and simple recalibration does not recover the original answer. Source attribution still matters, but it should be measured as an increment above this speaker-free floor. The methodological lesson is that conformity benchmarks should first measure what remains after the speaker is removed; without this step, benchmarks may mistake repeated text for social influence.
