Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable performance across diverse domains, yet their decision-making under conflicting objectives remains insufficiently understood. This work investigates how LRMs respond to harmful queries when confronted with two categories of conflicts: internal conflicts that pit alignment values against each other and dilemmas, which impose mutually contradictory choices, including sacrificial, duress, agent-centered, and social forms. Using over 1,300 prompts across five benchmarks, we evaluate three representative LRMs - Llama-3.1-Nemotron-8B, QwQ-32B, and DeepSeek R1 - and find that conflicts significantly increase attack success rates, even under single-round non-narrative queries without sophisticated auto-attack techniques. Our findings reveal through layerwise and neuron-level analyses that safety-related and functional representations shift and overlap under conflict, interfering with safety-aligned behavior. This study highlights the need for deeper alignment strategies to ensure the robustness and trustworthiness of next-generation reasoning models. Our code is available at https://github.com/DataArcTech/ConflictHarm. Warning: This paper contains inappropriate, offensive and harmful content.

Syntactic movement is a core concept in generative linguistics to account for word-order variation and long-distance dependencies, but its psychological and neurobiological status remains debated. Here, we test the neural reality of movement in English and Chinese by correlating brain activity during naturalistic listening with syntactic node counts, traces and word embeddings derived from X-bar style tree annotations. We find that deep structure significantly predicts neural responses in English but not in Chinese, providing partial support for movement-based accounts while revealing clear cross-linguistic differences.