People often encounter role conflicts—social dilemmas where the expectations of multiple roles clash and cannot be simultaneously fulfilled. As large language models (LLMs) increasingly navigate these social dynamics, a critical research question emerges. When faced with such dilemmas, do LLMs prioritize dynamic contextual cues or the learned preferences? To address this, we introduce RoleConflictBench, a novel benchmark designed to measure the contextual sensitivity of LLMs in role conflict scenarios. To enable objective evaluation within this subjective domain, we employ situational urgency as a constraint for decision-making. We construct the dataset through a three-stage pipeline that generates over 13,000 realistic scenarios across 65 roles in five social domains by systematically varying the urgency of competing situations. This controlled setup enables us to quantitatively measure contextual sensitivity, determining whether model decisions align with the situational contexts or are overridden by the learned role preferences. Our analysis of 10 LLMs reveals that models substantially deviate from this objective baseline. Instead of responding to dynamic contextual cues, their decisions are predominantly governed by the preferences toward specific social roles.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly acting as human delegates in multi-agent environments, where a representative agent integrates diverse peer perspectives to make a final decision. Drawing inspiration from social psychology, we investigate how the reliability of this representative agent is undermined by the social context of its network. We define four key phenomena—social conformity, perceived expertise, dominant speaker effect, and rhetorical persuasion—and systematically manipulate the number of adversaries, relative intelligence, argument length, and argumentative styles. Our experiments demonstrate that the representative agent’s accuracy consistently declines as social pressure increases: larger adversarial groups, more capable peers, and longer arguments all lead to significant performance degradation. Furthermore, rhetorical strategies emphasizing credibility or logic can further sway the agent’s judgment, depending on the context. These findings reveal that multi-agent systems are sensitive not only to individual reasoning but also to the social dynamics of their configuration, highlighting critical vulnerabilities in AI delegates that mirror the psychological biases observed in human group decision-making.

Static benchmarks for harmful content detection face limitations in scalability and diversity, and may also be affected by contamination from web-scale pre-training corpora. To address these issues, we propose a framework for synthesizing harmful content, leveraging persona-guided large language model (LLM) agents. Our approach constructs two-dimensional user personas by integrating demographic identities and topical interests with situational harmful strategies, enabling the simulation of diverse and contextually grounded harmful interactions. We evaluate the framework along three dimensions: harmfulness, challenge level, and diversity. Both human and LLM-based evaluations confirm that our framework achieves a high harmful generation success rate. Experiments across multiple detection systems reveal that our synthetic scenarios are more challenging to detect than those in existing benchmarks. Furthermore, a multi-faceted analysis confirms that our approach achieves linguistic and topical diversity comparable to human-curated datasets, establishing our framework as an effective tool for robust stress-testing of harmful content detection systems.