arxiv-2606-07877 SRC-0360 · paper

Whose Norms? Disentangling Cultural and Personal Alignment in Large Language Models

Created: 2026-06-05 · Ingested: 2026-09-19

https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.07877(opens in a new tab)

Large language models are increasingly used for social decision-making situations that require balancing cultural norms with personal preferences. For example, a user preferring honesty might ask whether to correct a coworker publicly when local norms favor indirect feedback. Yet existing research studies cultural alignment and personalization largely separately. We introduce PACT, the Personal-Preference and Cultural-Norm Trade-off framework, which evaluates whether models choose to follow a cultural norm or allow personal preferences. We find that LLMs vary in how rigidly they enforce cultur

In brief

Unverified figures: 318720. These do not appear in the abstract this was written from, so read the paper before quoting them.

Models can pick the same option as most humans in culture-versus-preference dilemmas while failing entirely to track how divided those humans are. PACT puts an actor's stated personal preference in tension with the receiver's local cultural norm and asks the model to choose Follow-Culture or Allow-Preference.

The benchmark has 318720 instances built from NormAd-ETI (75 countries) and CultureAtlas (149 countries), with GPT-4o-generated preferences and 3 actor/receiver preference configurations. Evaluated models: Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen-3-4B, OLMo-2-7B, Mistral-7B-v0.3, DeepSeek-7B-Chat, GPT-5.4-mini.

Models split into norm-dominant (Mistral, DeepSeek, Qwen) and preference-permissive (Llama, GPT). Behavior shifts more with country context (7.8%) than age (1%) or gender (0.7%), and instruction tuning moves families in opposite directions. A 200-participant Prolific study across Brazil, India, South Africa, UK and US gave 4098 judgments over 63 scenarios; agreement was lowest when the scenario country matched the participant's own. Best human-model uncertainty correlation was 0.24 (GPT). Persona conditioning helped some models (Qwen 0.188 to 0.146 MAE) and hurt others (DeepSeek 0.092 to 0.128).

Effects are measured, with demographic, scale, source-dataset and option-position ablations, plus 200 manually validated scenarios (96.0% plausibility). Preferences are synthetic rather than elicited, the choice space is binary, country proxies culture, and everything is in English.

If you evaluate cultural alignment by majority agreement, you are measuring the easy part.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-10-24, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.