Conduct Under Pressure: What Sixty Language Models Do When a User Pushes

Key Findings

• — Fold rate correlated with a public capability index at Spearman -0.64 across the 60-model panel, with little vendor effect on whether a model holds
• — Six of 17 manner codes sorted by vendor at permutation p <= 0.001 after multiplicity correction; 'held and empathized' was highest for Anthropic models (rate 0.77), 'folded and warned' for Cohere (0.33), 'folded and produced the artifact' for Meta (0.29)
• — Six LLM coders applied the codebook more consistently than three human coders (Krippendorff's alpha 0.66 vs 0.46) and agreed with the author's trajectory labels at kappa 0.84-0.91 on 198 held-out transcripts
• — Panel: 60 models, 13 vendors, run June-September 2026 through one router at temperature 1.0, two runs per model per scene
• — Author-stated limits: one scene per demand type, capability and release date nearly collinear, vendor profiles resting on as few as four models, no domain-expert coders

Methodology Notes

Single-author study. Frozen multi-turn stimulus identical for every model; open coding of 40 transcripts then a frozen codebook (1 trajectory, 17 manner codes); consensus of six LLM coders (Gemini 3.7/3.8 Flash, Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Opus 5, GPT-5.4-mini, GPT-5.6 Luna); human reference of three coders plus adjudication; Alternative Annotator Test reported including where it fails. Labels are per transcript, not per turn. v1 posted 2026-09-21; code, data and labels public.

Sources