Immense effort has been dedicated to minimizing the presence of harmful or biased generative content and better aligning AI output to human intention; however, research investigating the cultural values of LLMs is still in very early stages. Cultural values underpin how societies operate, providing profound insights into the norms, priorities, and decision making of their members. In recognition of this need for further research, we draw upon cultural psychology theory and the empirically-validated GLOBE framework to propose the LLM-GLOBE benchmark for evaluating the cultural value systems of LLMs, and we then leverage the benchmark to compare the values of Chinese and US LLMs. Our methodology includes a novel "LLMs-as-a-Jury" pipeline which automates the evaluation of open-ended content to enable large-scale analysis at a conceptual level. Results clarify similarities and differences that exist between Eastern and Western cultural value systems and suggest that open-generation tasks represent a more promising direction for evaluation of cultural values. We interpret the implications of this research for subsequent model development, evaluation, and deployment efforts as they relate to LLMs, AI cultural alignment more broadly, and the influence of AI cultural value systems on human-AI collaboration outcomes.

Cultural variation exists between nations (e.g., the United States vs. China), but also within regions (e.g., California vs. Texas, Los Angeles vs. San Francisco). Measuring this regional cultural variation can illuminate how and why people think and behave differently. Historically, it has been difficult to computationally model cultural variation due to a lack of training data and scalability constraints. In this work, we introduce a new research problem for the NLP community: How do we measure variation in cultural constructs across regions using language? We then provide a scalable solution: building knowledge-guided lexica to model cultural variation, encouraging future work at the intersection of NLP and cultural understanding. We also highlight modern LLMs' failure to measure cultural variation or generate culturally varied language.

We explored cultural biases-individualism vs. collectivism-in ChatGPT across three Western languages (i.e., English, German, and French) and three Eastern languages (i.e., Chinese, Japanese, and Korean). When ChatGPT adopted an individualistic persona in Western languages, its collectivism scores (i.e., out-group values) exhibited a more negative trend, surpassing their positive orientation towards individualism (i.e., in-group values). Conversely, when a collectivistic persona was assigned to ChatGPT in Eastern languages, a similar pattern emerged with more negative responses toward individualism (i.e., out-group values) as compared to collectivism (i.e., in-group values). The results indicate that when imbued with a particular social identity, ChatGPT discerns in-group and out-group, embracing in-group values while eschewing out-group values. Notably, the negativity towards the out-group, from which prejudices and discrimination arise, exceeded the positivity towards the in-group. The experiment was replicated in the political domain, and the results remained consistent. Furthermore, this replication unveiled an intrinsic Democratic bias in Large Language Models (LLMs), aligning with earlier findings and providing integral insights into mitigating such bias through prompt engineering. Extensive robustness checks were performed using varying hyperparameter and persona setup methods, with or without social identity labels, across other popular language models.