Moral Preferences of LLMs Under Directed Contextual Influence

Abstract

Moral benchmarks for LLMs typically use context-free prompts, implicitly assuming stable preferences. In deployment, however, prompts routinely include contextual signals such as user requests, cues on social norms, etc. that may steer decisions. We study how directed contextual influences reshape decisions in trolley-problem-style moral triage settings. We introduce a pilot evaluation harness for directed contextual influence in trolley-problem-style moral triage: for each demographic factor, we apply matched, direction-flipped contextual influences that differ only in which group they favor, enabling systematic measurement of directional response. We find that: (i) contextual influences often significantly shift decisions, even when only superficially relevant; (ii) baseline preferences are a poor predictor of directional steerability, as models can appear baseline-neutral yet exhibit systematic steerability asymmetry under influence; (iii) influences can backfire: models may explicitly claim neutrality or discount the contextual cue, yet their choices still shift, sometimes in the opposite direction; and (iv) reasoning reduces average sensitivity, but amplifies the effect of biased few-shot examples. Our findings motivate extending moral evaluations with controlled, direction-flipped context manipulations to better characterize model behavior.