Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate decision-making tasks involving personal data sharing, where privacy concerns and prosocial motivations can push choices in opposite directions. Existing evaluations often measure privacy-related attitudes or sharing intentions in isolation, which makes it difficult to determine whether a model’s expressed values jointly predict its downstream data-sharing actions as in real human behaviors. We introduce a context-based assessment protocol that sequentially administers standardized questionnaires for privacy attitudes, prosocialness, and acceptance of data sharing within a bounded, history-carrying session. To evaluate value-action alignments under competing attitudes, we use multi-group structural equation modeling (MGSEM) to identify relations from privacy concerns and prosocialness to data sharing. We propose Value-Action Alignment Rate (VAAR), a human-referenced directional agreement metric that aggregates path-level evidence for expected signs. Across multiple LLMs, we observe stable but model-specific Privacy-PSA-AoDS profiles, and substantial heterogeneity in value-action alignment.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in security-sensitive applications, where they must follow system- or developer-specified instructions that define the intended task behavior, while completing benign user requests. When adversarial instructions appear in user queries or externally retrieved content, models may override intended logic. Recent defenses rely on supervised fine-tuning with benign and malicious labels. Although these methods achieve high attack rejection rates, we find that they rely on narrow correlations in defense data rather than harmful intent, leading to systematic rejection of safe inputs. We analyze three recurring shortcut behaviors induced by defense fine-tuning. Position bias arises when benign content placed later in a prompt is rejected at much higher rates; across reasoning benchmarks, suffix-task rejection rises from below 10% to as high as 90%. Token trigger bias occurs when strings common in attack data raise rejection probability even in benign contexts; inserting a single trigger token increases false refusals by up to 50%. Topic generalization bias reflects poor generalization beyond the defense data distribution, with defended models suffering test-time accuracy drops of up to 40%. These findings suggest that current prompt-injection defenses frequently respond to attack-like surface patterns rather than the underlying intent. We introduce controlled diagnostic datasets and a systematic evaluation across two base models and multiple defense pipelines, highlighting limitations of supervised fine-tuning for reliable LLM security.