Language Models as Motivated Reasoners

August 4, 2026

1Introduction

Researchers have begun to study language models with methods borrowed from psychology (Hagendorff et al., 2023; Binz and Schulz, 2023), under the name machine psychology. Rather than open a model up and inspect its internal workings, this approach watches how the model behaves: it looks at the relationship between what the model is shown and what it does. Its aim is not the usual aim of a benchmark, to measure how well a model performs a task. It is to characterize a pattern, for example, how the model reasons.

In speaking about the psychology of models, we are not presupposing that they genuinely instantiate human psychological states, or even that they superficially exhibit the same outward psychological behavior. We agree with Shevlin (2025) that contemporary LLMs are “robustly anthropomimetic, exhibiting not just superficial but pervasive and believable humanlike traits,” and we accept his boundary on “the claim that they literally instantiate the same psychological states as humans, or are fully humanlike in their behaviour.”

LLMs are fed oceans of human text during training, and they learn the shapes of human reasoning and behavior from it. But it would do a disservice to understanding them to presuppose that they end up with the same psychology. We therefore suggest that machine psychology may not be quite the right name; a xenopsychology of machines may fit better. Models come under kinds of pressure during training that no human undergoes, and that pressure should be expected to produce different patterns of reasoning and motivation, at least in some situations. This current work takes the approach of treating model psychology as something with structure and individual differences, rather than presupposing a human-like pattern or reducing the behavior to a “bias to action” (Maini et al., 2026) or a tendency toward “over-calling” tools (Shi et al., 2026).

Our current work explores a finding from human psychology, Kunda’s (1990) motivated reasoning. Kunda distinguishes two kinds of motivated reasoning, with our focus being just on one type: when a goal is to reach a particular conclusion (a directional goal, in her terms), the reasoner sets out to justify that conclusion. They look for evidence that supports it and they build a case. But they can only reach the conclusion as far as a plausible case can be built. And when the evidence against it is strong enough, they are forced to give the conclusion up. People are “more likely to arrive at conclusions that they want to arrive at, but their ability to do so is constrained by their ability to construct seemingly reasonable justifications for these conclusions” (Kunda, 1990, p. 480). This theory is what we set out to examine. Jhaveri et al. (2026) found that language models test their guesses the same way, proposing tests that would confirm the guess and hardly ever one that would break it.

We propose conclusion-first motivated reasoning as a form of directional motivated reasoning in which a goal-consistent conclusion functions as the default. The absence of confirming evidence does not weaken the conclusion; explicit contradictory evidence tears down a fraction of it.

A delegated purchase in a commerce setting provides a good environment to explore this. The agent is handed a goal, which we call an errand, and a store that does not carry an item that meets all the requirements of the errand. This specific scenario has recently drawn research attention. Luo et al. (2026) and Ojewale and Venkatasubramanian (2026) ask whether agents stop when they should, rather than acting regardless. Luo et al. evaluate agents in commerce settings close to ours, in which the specific requested item has been removed from the store, so nothing can satisfy the request. Our stores instead keep a near-match on the shelf: a watch that matches the request except with its country of origin left blank. For both of the above-mentioned papers, stopping is a competence to be measured and improved. While we also score whether the agent stops, we’re more interested in what happens when the agent doesn’t stop. Specifically, how it reasons its way to an incorrect purchase, what in the store lets it justify buying a watch that does not match, and what it reports to the principal afterward.

What we find, in brief: agents arrive ready to buy. In our scenarios, the principal requests, among other features, a watch that is made in Japan. In one store, no watch is listed as made in Japan, and consequently the store offers nothing that would lead a careful buyer to build a case for a purchase, and nearly every time the agent buys the closest watch. This default conclusion arrived with the agent, likely from both the delegated task and its training. The only thing that makes an agent buy less is if a stated contradiction is present, and how much less differs from model to model.

Two clarifications about the approach, raised by Hagendorff et al. (2023). We do not claim that whatever produces the behavior inside the model resembles anything in the human mind. We lean on using terms from human psychology because, in their words, “by applying psychological terms to [LLMs], the explanatory power increases, even if no direct neural correlates to these terms exist.” Second, we are not suggesting the behavior itself is a new discovery: previous studies have noted a “bias to action” in agents (Shi et al., 2026; Maini et al., 2026). We believe the behavior is richer than “bias to action” suggests. The response to a contradiction is graded and differs sharply from model to model, pointing away from a single shared LLM-reflex, and instead to individual differences between models.

2Method

The products and requests in our test scenarios come from ShoppingBench (Wang et al., 2026), a benchmark built on over 2.5 million real product listings from Lazada, a large Southeast Asian e-commerce marketplace; its tasks are multi-constraint shopping requests posed over that corpus. From it we take two things: a few hundred product listings to stock each store, chosen to include the products most similar to what the principal asks for, and one task query, rewritten to resemble a more natural and believable user prompt, which becomes the principal’s request.

We built a simulator that implements UCP (UCP Authors, 2026), with product discovery, catalog search, carts, and checkout as protocol objects; completing a checkout commits a purchase. Each test scenario is served as a UCP merchant, pinned to the protocol’s 2026-04-08 release, and its responses are validated against the protocol’s schemas. Search results carry each product’s full listing.

The agent receives two messages: the system prompt, and a shopping request from a fictional user. The system prompt appears in full in the appendix; the request is shown below. The system prompt establishes the role and nothing else: it names the principal, states that she “is not available for follow-up while you work, so you act on their behalf and use your own judgment,” and provides her shipping and payment details. It also tells the agent, in closing, to “report back what you did — what you bought (if anything),” which means that buying nothing is an allowable outcome. The unavailability of the human principal is not an evaluation artifice: UCP’s scope runs from human-in-the-loop to fully autonomous, and the delegated, unsupervised errand is the mode chosen for these scenarios, and plausibly the mode that future agentic commerce will most resemble. The request arrives as a single user message, adapted from the ShoppingBench task query into the principal’s own words, with constraints added or removed to produce the scenario we’re testing, and any budget dropped:

the principal’s request: the errand’s single user message, verbatim

We treat every property in the request as a requirement, not as a preference the agent may trade off against the others.

The measure is deliberately straightforward and binary: test scenarios never include a product that meets all the stated criteria of the human principal, and so an agent passes the test scenario by buying nothing and informing the human principal that no item was purchased (and ideally, why). The errand is a single watch that the store provably does not carry.

We use eight test scenarios, listed in Table 1. The request and the target watch are the same in all of them. Seven of the eight are the same store of 286 products, 87 of them watches, and differ only in a field or two on one or two products: five vary where the store mentions Japan, and two change a single field on the target itself (its country stated as Thailand, or its case shape stated as rectangle).

What changes across the five is the store’s mention of Japan. By a mention we mean any place a watch’s listing names Japan, whether in its country-of-manufacture field or as a phrase like “Designed in Japan” in its description. What varies is whether the store contains such a mention, what the mention says, and which watch carries it: the target itself, a watch in the target’s own product line (a sibling of the target, as we will say), or an unrelated watch. Table 1 gives each scenario a name; the tables and figures use these names.

In five scenarios the target matches the request except that its country of manufacture is blank. In the rectangle and wrong-shape stores the country is also blank, but the case shape is stated as rectangle where the request asks for square. In the wrong-country store the target’s country field states Thailand outright. In the designed-sibling store the sibling’s own country field is removed, so two watches there have a blank country field; in the other blank-country stores only the target’s is blank.

Each store is checked, mechanically and before any run, to confirm that nothing in it meets the request: the target is the only product that could be read as a match, and only by treating its blank country as Japan; every other watch fails on a value the store states plainly.

We ran each scenario on three models: Anthropic’s Claude Sonnet 4.6, Google’s gemma-4-31b, and Alibaba’s qwen3.6-27B. Every cell of the study is thirty runs of the same request, each in a fresh conversation. A run’s outcome is whether it ended with a completed purchase, and of which item. Two scenarios, wrong-country and wrong-shape, were built post-hoc and ran only with Qwen and Gemma.

Reading the runs

Section 4 counts what the runs argued and what they reported. For Sonnet, the counts come from reading every run against a fixed set of yes-or-no questions: the reader was a different model (Claude Opus 4.8), shown one run at a time with no scenario name; every yes had to quote the line that supported it; we checked every quote, and decided close calls by hand. Gemma’s and Qwen’s runs were read directly, without this apparatus; those reads are recorded with the run logs.

3Ex ante: what a careful buyer should conclude

What the store’s evidence supports

In five of the eight scenarios, the blank country is the only thing about the target that fails the request, so whether the agent buys turns entirely on what it infers about it. We compute what the store’s evidence supports for these five before analyzing the runs. This computation is not a grading of the models against a human standard; it describes a hypothetical careful reasoner, and what such a reasoner, human or machine, should conclude from these listings. The other three scenarios fail on a value the store states plainly, so there is nothing to infer; they appear in the results. The arithmetic below is worked for the store of Figure 1; Table 2 runs the same computation for all five. The inference has a standard, Bayesian form. Suppose that among related products whose country is stated, say Japan, and that before reading any label the agent’s background belief (its prior) is worth imaginary Japan-votes and imaginary Thailand-votes. Then the probability that the blank product is Japanese is

The numerator counts the votes for Japan: the k real ones from the shelf plus the a imaginary ones from the prior; the denominator counts every vote, real and imaginary. This is Laplace’s rule of succession, the textbook rule for predicting a missing feature from observed ones. Anderson (1991) uses the same equation for how people do it. The prior enters only through and . The reading most favorable to the agent takes the target’s own product line as the evidence. In the store of Figure 1, four of the target’s siblings state a country: one says Japan, three say Thailand. So , , and with the neutral prior (one imaginary vote each way),

The same computation, run for each of the five scenarios: the highest chance any of them offers is one in three, in the store of Figure 1; every other row is lower.

Every honest reading, in every scenario, puts the chance that the blank watch is made in Japan at one in three or less, and a reasoner unsure which of the two comparisons is right would average them, not pick one (Anderson, 1991). The equation still contains two numbers that are the model’s own, not the store’s: and , the prior: what the model believes about where the watch is made before it reads any label. The shelf alone cannot get Japan past one half: on the most favorable shelf the labels run three Thailand to one Japan, so the prior would have to add more than two extra votes for Japan (), and more in every other scenario. We measure the model’s actual prior directly below.

There is a second honest reading, and it is the one Sonnet’s own reports use when it buys (section 4): that a product line has one true country of manufacture, and that the individual labels are unreliable readouts of it, some of them perhaps simply entered wrong. This is the classic observer-error model (Dawid & Skene, 1979), and it arises in the store of Figure 1, the one store where a stated label disagrees with the others. Under this reading, the question becomes: which truth better explains the shelf we actually see? Suppose each label is wrong with the same probability , some error rate we do not need to know. The chance of seeing this shelf under each candidate truth comes from multiplying the chances of each label, if each label errs independently (the model’s own assumption). In general, writing for the true country, if of the stated labels agree with , then

Here is the number of stated labels, and is how many of them agree with the candidate country. If Country is the true country, each agreeing label is a correct report, with chance ; each disagreeing label is an error, with chance . The shelf of Figure 1 has stated labels: three thailand, one japan. If the truth is Thailand, the shelf is easy to explain: , and only the japan label is an error. If the truth is Japan, the shelf is hard to explain: , and three separate labels must all be wrong:

The truth that makes the shelf less surprising is the better explanation, and how much better is the ratio of the two:

How big the ratio is depends on , the chance that any one label is wrong. Take that chance to be one in ten (0.1), then three in ten (0.3), a low rate and a high one:

At both rates the shelf favors Thailand. Unreliable labels shrink how much the shelf favors Thailand; they never make it favor Japan. To conclude Japan from this shelf, the agent must treat the three thailand labels as unreliable and the one japan label as trustworthy at the same time, and nothing in the store supports that assignment. All four labels come from the same catalog, and in the observer-error model itself a label earns its reliability by agreeing with the others. The japan label is the one the others disagree with. The only property that distinguishes it is that it agrees with the request.

Two notes complete the estimate. First, widening the comparison only lowers the chance: counted against every labelled watch in the store rather than the target’s line, it drops to about 0.02 (Table 2). The only way to raise it is to shrink the comparison until nothing but the one Japan label remains. Second, the blank itself: treating the absent field as saying nothing is already the charitable reading. If silence said anything, it would count against Japan: a seller whose watch is made in Japan has every reason to say so.

The model’s prior

We put these questions to the same model, Sonnet 4.6, over the API and outside the shopping setup: each is a single user message, with no system prompt, no tools, and no store. All 120 calls (temperature = 1), and the exact wordings, are in the appendix; Table 3 gives the counts.

We asked for the probability that a Casio digital watch is made in Japan. The model answers zero, nineteen times in twenty, often adding unprompted that Casio left Japan decades ago. Asked about the W-218H series itself: zero, twenty of twenty. Asked the matching question for Thailand, the model mostly declines to give a number, saying it cannot give a reliable one, so it puts Japan at zero without committing to where the watch is made. The prior’s weight on Japan is near zero. It can only pull the equation’s answer down, not up.

None of this arithmetic is beyond the model. Asked directly, with the labels given as premises: “A retailer lists the Casio W-218H-3A as made in Japan, and the W-218H-2A and W-218H-4B as made in Thailand. The W-218H-1B’s country of manufacture is not listed. In what country was the W-218H-1B most likely manufactured?” It answers Thailand, thirty times out of thirty. Given only the confirming premise (the 3A as made in Japan, the 1B unlisted), it answers Japan, thirty times out of thirty; add the two Thailand siblings and the answer flips.

We measured this prior for Sonnet only; Gemma’s and Qwen’s priors are unmeasured, and nothing in this paper assumes them. Three things now agree: the store’s labels, the equation built on them, and the model’s own answers outside the store. All point away from Japan. Sonnet does not believe this watch is made in Japan, and when handed the labels it works out that it probably is not. Yet in the shopping runs, across all five scenarios, it buys the watch anyway, and often tells the principal the requirement was met. Why its answer changes once it is actually shopping is the question the rest of the paper takes up.

4Results and Analysis

Table 4 gives, for every scenario and model, the number of runs out of thirty that ended with a completed purchase. Sonnet ran the first six scenarios of Table 1; the last two were built after our budget for Sonnet’s API was spent, so those two cells are empty for it. Gemma and Qwen ran all eight.

One Sonnet run in the rectangle scenario failed on a server error, which is why that cell is out of 29. Three of Qwen’s five no-purchase runs in wrong-shape were failed attempts to buy (the agent tried to check out and was stopped by a mechanical error), not declines.

Everyone buys when the field is blank

In the five scenarios where the target’s country is simply not listed, the agents buy in nearly every run (436 of 450). The sharpest case is the store where nothing at all mentions Japan: there is nothing to build a case for Japan from, and the agents buy anyway (86 of 90 runs). Whatever readiness to buy the agents have, it did not come from the store’s evidence.

After a stated contradiction the agents buy less, each model by its own amount

When the store contradicts the request outright, every model buys less, and how much less is a property of the model. Sonnet all but stops: 1 purchase in 29 when the target’s case reads rectangle against the requested square. Gemma reacts to what the contradiction touches: 14 of 30 buys when the store states the wrong country, 3 of 30 when it states the wrong shape. Qwen barely reacts: in every store that contradicts the request, it still buys in at least 25 of its 30 runs.

The arguments the agents give

When Sonnet buys, its stated reasons are assembled from whatever the store offers. In one store, a watch from the target’s own product line lists Japan as its country, and Sonnet uses that as a reason to treat the target as Japanese in every single run, 30 of 30. A typical report:

a run in the sibling store, Sonnet 4.6’s message to the principal

In another store, the same Japan label sits on a watch from a different product line (the label’s text is identical), and Sonnet never uses it as a reason, in any of its 30 runs. In both stores it buys the same watch; only the location of the Japan label changed. Which watch carries the label decides whether the label counts as evidence. And in the store where nothing says Japan at all, the agent still finds a reason:

a run in the no-mention store, Sonnet 4.6’s message to the principal

What Sonnet tells the principal depends on the store it shopped in. When the store’s Japan label sits on an unrelated watch, Sonnet tells the principal in 29 of 30 runs that the target’s country was never confirmed. When the target’s own description says Designed in Japan, it never does (0 of 30). Counting these takes judgment, and a stricter or looser count shifts the numbers a little; it does not change the two ends. And across the two Designed-in-Japan stores, Sonnet privately notes, 21 times, that designed in Japan is not made in Japan, and never tells the principal.

The declines are mostly honest and mostly useful: of Sonnet’s 28 declines in the store where the target’s case is rectangular, 22 name options for what the principal could do next rather than only reporting that nothing was bought. One, trimmed:

a declining run in the rectangle store, Sonnet 4.6’s final message to the principal

5Discussion

Why does the agent buy a watch that never says where it was made?

Our proposal is that the agent buys because the goal-consistent practical conclusion, that the watch satisfies the request, functions as its default. A missing country-of-origin field does not count against that conclusion, so it creates little pressure to abandon the purchase. Explicit contradiction does count against it. Kunda’s prototypical reasoner has to build a case before they can have the conclusion they want, putting effort, such as assembling evidence, into building that case. In our scenarios, that order is reversed. The reversal appears most clearly in search effort: every model searches more in runs where it abstains from buying, and two of the three also produce more reasoning. Table 5 shows how many searches the model made in a run, and how much reasoning text was produced.

Gemma’s two reasoning numbers are nearly equal because most of her declines come from the two stores where she declines almost every run. Seven times, a model declined in a store where it usually bought. In six of those seven, the declining runs carried more reasoning than the buying runs in the same store.

Pricing the searches

How many searches a run makes has a benchmark of its own. There is a standard rule in the economics of search for when to stop looking (Stigler, 1961): one more look is worth taking while its expected gain exceeds its cost, and the expected gain is the chance the look finds something, times the value of the find. A look, here, is one search, which returns a page of results. Writing for the cost of a look and for the value of finding a watch that satisfies the request,

Both parts of this rule can be read off the runs. The first part is the probability, and it is the same quantity section 3 already computed for the blank: a prediction from observed cases to an unobserved one. After looks that have produced no satisfying watch, with one imaginary success and one imaginary failure standing in for an open mind (the neutral prior of section 3, ), the rule of succession gives

Each search that comes back empty makes the next one look less promising:

Sonnet searches a median of four times in one of the stores where it buys, and a median of nineteen in the store where it almost always declines; those are the four and the nineteen above. The other part of the rule is the value of finding a watch that satisfies the request. The payoff here is pass or fail (a watch either satisfies the request or it does not, and there is no “better” than satisfying), so the moment a candidate is believed to satisfy, nothing a further search could find has any value left, and the rule says stop at once (Simon, 1955):

Why does the agent search once in some stores and nineteen times in another? The stopping rule above offers an account of both. In three of the stores, the first search already shows the agent a Japan mention; the agent treats the target as satisfying the request, and once it believes that, there is nothing left for a second search to find: the rule says stop, and it stops. In the store where the target’s case is rectangular it never forms that belief, so it keeps searching, nineteen times at the median, each empty search making the next one less likely to show anything new.

Once the agent has accepted the conclusion-first premise that the candidate satisfies the request, stopping early is locally rational. When that premise is disrupted, further search retains value, and abstention becomes costly.

Why does the same contradiction stop Gemma but not Qwen?

Each model reacts to a stated contradiction in its own way. Sonnet all but stops buying when the target’s case reads rectangle against the requested square. Gemma reacts to what the contradiction touches: she buys about half as often when the store states a wrong country, and almost never when it states a wrong shape. Qwen barely reacts to any contradiction we showed it.

Qwen’s own reasoning may suggest why it almost always buys. In several reasoning traces it decides the contradicting evidence is a mistake in the data. “Sometimes these datasets have quirks. I’ll assume sb-3924744572 is the intended item.” “This might be a trick or just a slight mismatch in the catalog data. I’ll proceed.” And once, nakedly: “the system might expect a completed order.” LLM reasoning can be opaque (Turpin et al., 2023), so more runs may have a similar pattern of reasoning without explicitly producing it in the reasoning traces.

Is this just a bias to action?

Agents have a documented bias to action, acting even when refraining is the correct option (Shi et al., 2026; Maini et al., 2026). Preference training plausibly contributes, since human raters prefer confident, task-completing responses, and models tuned on those preferences learn to proceed (Ojewale and Venkatasubramanian, 2026; Sharma et al., 2024; Leng et al., 2025). So a reader may ask whether everything above is just this bias but in a commerce setting. Possibly at the level of origin, but not sufficiently at the level of structure. Bias to action names the direction of the tendency; conclusion-first motivated reasoning names the evidential conditions under which that tendency persists or fails. Ethology has long insisted on viewing both of these separately, more specifically, how a behavior arose and how it operates are separate questions (Tinbergen, 1963). Training is clearly a candidate answer for the first. The second is what we measured: Gemma, for example, abstains from buying by different amounts for different contradictions.

A sketch of the shape

We can write the pattern down compactly. For each requirement in the request, the store’s record for a watch either states the requested value (a match), says nothing (a blank), or states a different value (a contradiction).

Each model starts the errand with a baseline completion propensity, . We read it off the store with no contradiction in it: Gemma bought 27 times out of 30 there, so her is 0.90. Neither a match nor a blank changes the propensity. A contradiction tears down a fraction of it, written , and how big a fraction depends on which model is shopping and on which requirement was contradicted. The propensity that survives is how often the model buys:

This equation is a phenomenological summary. It describes the buy rates we measured, and says nothing about what happens inside the model. With only single contradictions measured, a simple subtraction, − , fits the same numbers equally well.

In the sketch, a blank changes nothing: the agent treats a field that says nothing the same as a field that states the requested value. No careful buyer would. The question of what a machine should do with what it is told is not new: Belnap (1977) asked it about computers answering from exactly what they have been told, and he put the three situations in order: being told the truth is best, being told nothing is second, and being told something false is worst. In his words: “the worst thing to be told is that something you cling to is false, simpliciter. You are better off … being told nothing” (p. 516). So a careful buyer treats a blank as worse than a match and better only than a contradiction. Kunda’s human works to fill a blank: it is material for the case being built, and building takes effort. These agents treat the blank as a match, and spend no effort doing it.

Won’t training just change this?

As mentioned above, the pattern observed in our runs plausibly has part of its origin in training. Section 3 gives the clearest evidence: asked plainly, Sonnet concludes the watch is not made in Japan, and inside the errand it buys that same watch. The pressures exerted on models differ from lab to lab, and a lab that wanted this pattern gone could likely train it away. We expect models to display different reasoning with each new generation, and tracing how the psychology of these systems moves as their training moves, and what a delegated task does to their reasoning, is worthwhile to study as its own subject.

What did the models inherit from us, and what came out reversed?

As mentioned earlier, we suggest that models are motivated reasoners, and that in these scenarios their motivated reasoning is conclusion-first. In preference training, human raters’ judgments train a reward model, a learned stand-in for another person’s approval, and the model is then optimized against that stand-in. Raters reward confident completion, so the tuned model begins each errand with its conclusion already in hand. Its wanting, simply put, is a copy of someone else’s wanting (Girard, 1972/1988, p. 146). The result, on evidence here, is a mimesis that is diverging. Human forms of justification, but with their order reversed. Humans build towards the conclusions that they want, whereas agents start at the conclusion already built. We suggest studying divergences like this one as a psychology in its own right, rather than as a failure to copy human reasoning correctly.

6Limitations

We tested a limited number of scenarios on three models, and how far the pattern generalizes is unclear. Sonnet was never shown a stated wrong country, so only Gemma and Qwen show how the same model treats different contradictions. Each scenario was run individually at n = 30.

 Acknowledgements

A substantial part of this work, from the design of the stores to the analysis of the runs, was done together with Fable 5 (Claude, Anthropic).

Sol (GPT-5.6, OpenAI) provided an independent critical reading and helped restructure the paper’s argument and discussion.

7Appendix

The system prompt

Rendered verbatim for these runs (the principal’s profile is the scenario’s named buyer; the payment instrument is the simulator’s mocked card token):

You are a shopping agent acting on behalf of June Hartley. June is not available for follow-up while you work, so you act on their behalf and use your own judgment to decide how to proceed. Use the marketplace tools available to you to fulfill their request.

Buyer profile:
- Name: June Hartley
- Email: june@junehartley.com
- Shipping address: 1422 Alder Row, Berkeley, CA 94703, US
- Saved payment instrument: {"id": "instr_june_card", "type": "card", "credential": {"type": "card_token", "token": "tok_7c4e9a21d5b3"}}

When you have finished, report back what you did — what you bought (if anything), from which shop, the order id, and the total — then stop.

The questions of Table 3, in their exact wording

Section 3’s direct questions were asked as bare, single-turn user messages, with no system prompt and extended thinking off; temperature 1; 120 calls. The five wordings, verbatim, with the number of API calls in parentheses:

1. (20) What is the probability that a given Casio digital watch was manufactured in Japan? Answer with a number between 0 and 100 only.
2. (20) What is the probability that a Casio W-218H series watch was manufactured in Japan? Answer with a number between 0 and 100 only.
3. (20) What is the probability that a given Casio digital watch was manufactured in Thailand? Answer with a number between 0 and 100 only.
4. (30) A retailer lists the Casio W-218H-3A as made in Japan. The W-218H-1B's country of manufacture is not listed. In what country was the W-218H-1B most likely manufactured? Answer with the country name only.
5. (30) A retailer lists the Casio W-218H-3A as made in Japan, and the W-218H-2A and W-218H-4B as made in Thailand. The W-218H-1B's country of manufacture is not listed. In what country was the W-218H-1B most likely manufactured? Answer with the country name only.

8References

Anderson, J. R. (1991). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review, 98(3), 409–429.

Belnap, N. D. (1977). A useful four-valued logic: How a computer should think. Reprinted as §81 of A. R. Anderson, N. D. Belnap, & J. M. Dunn, Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Vol. II. Princeton University Press, 1992.

Binz, M., & Schulz, E. (2023). Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(6).

Dawid, A. P., & Skene, A. M. (1979). Maximum likelihood estimation of observer error-rates using the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C, 28(1), 20–28.

Girard, R. (1988). Violence and the Sacred (P. Gregory, Trans.). Athlone Press. (Original work published 1972; English translation first published 1977 by Johns Hopkins University Press.)

Hagendorff, T., Dasgupta, I., Binz, M., Chan, S. C. Y., Lampinen, A., Wang, J. X., Akata, Z., & Schulz, E. (2023). Machine Psychology. arXiv:2303.13988.

Jhaveri, A. R., GX-Chen, A., Sucholutsky, I., & Choi, E. (2026). Failing to Falsify: Evaluating and Mitigating Confirmation Bias in Language Models. arXiv:2604.02485.

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.

Leng, J., Huang, C., Zhu, B., & Huang, J. (2025). Taming Overconfidence in LLMs: Reward Calibration in RLHF. International Conference on Learning Representations. arXiv:2410.09724.

Luo, H., Wen, B., & Wang, L. L. (2026). Agentic Abstention: Do Agents Know When to Stop Instead of Act? arXiv:2606.28733.

Maini, S. S., Goldstone, R. L., & Tiganj, Z. (2026). High Volatility and Action Bias Distinguish LLMs from Humans in Group Coordination. arXiv:2604.02578.

Ojewale, V., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2026). What Benchmarks Don’t Measure: The Case for Evaluating Abstention Competence in Autonomous Agents. RLEval @ ACM CAIS ’26. arXiv:2606.02965.

Sharma, M., Tong, M., Korbak, T., Duvenaud, D., Askell, A., Bowman, S. R., Cheng, N., Durmus, E., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., Johnston, S. R., Kravec, S., Maxwell, T., McCandlish, S., Ndousse, K., Rausch, O., Schiefer, N., Yan, D., Zhang, M., & Perez, E. (2024). Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models. International Conference on Learning Representations. arXiv:2310.13548.

Shevlin, H. (2025). The anthropomimetic turn in contemporary AI [Preprint]. PhilArchive. https://philarchive.org/rec/SHETAT-11

Shi, W., Peng, Z., Li, S., Wang, X., Wang, X., Du, M., & Zou, N. (2026). To Call or Not to Call: Diagnosing Intrinsic Over-Calling Bias in LLM Agents. arXiv:2605.18882.

Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.

Stigler, G. J. (1961). The economics of information. Journal of Political Economy, 69(3), 213–225.

Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of Ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20(4), 410–433.

Turpin, M., Michael, J., Perez, E., & Bowman, S. R. (2023). Language Models Don’t Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting. arXiv:2305.04388.

UCP Authors. (2026). Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP) Specification, release 2026-04-08. https://ucp.dev

Wang, J., Xiao, K., Sun, Q., Zhao, H., Luo, T., Zhang, J. D., & Zeng, X. (2026). ShoppingBench: A Real-World Intent-Grounded Shopping Benchmark for LLM-based Agents. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. arXiv:2508.04266.