# Do Large Language Models Understand Morality Across Cultures?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21319 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21319/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 31 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Jul 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.01068/) (2022)
- [BLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.05100/) (2022)
- [Probing Pre-Trained Language Models for Cross-Cultural Differences in Values](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.13722/) (2022)
- [The Ghost in the Machine has an American accent: value conflict in GPT-3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.07785/) (2022)
- [How Well Do LLMs Represent Values Across Cultures? Empirical Analysis of LLM Responses Based on Hofstede Cultural Dimensions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.14805/) (2024)
- [Knowledge of cultural moral norms in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01857/) (2023)
- [Assessing LLMs for Moral Value Pluralism](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.10075/) (2023)
- [Are Multilingual LLMs Culturally-Diverse Reasoners? An Investigation into Multicultural Proverbs and Sayings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.08591/) (2023)
- [Chinese Tiny LLM: Pretraining a Chinese-Centric Large Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04167/) (2024)
- [Quantifying and Reducing Stereotypes in Word Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.06121/) (2016)
- [Explainability in Practice: A Survey of Explainable NLP Across Various Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.00837/) (2025)
- [Assessing the Reliability of LLMs Annotations in the Context of Demographic Bias and Model Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.13138/) (2025)
- [Pairwise Adjusted Mutual Information](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.12641/) (2021)
- [Exploring Cultural Variations in Moral Judgments with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.12433/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [EvalMORAAL: Interpretable Chain-of-Thought and LLM-as-Judge Evaluation for Moral Alignment in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.05942/) (2025)
- [Probing Cultural Awareness in LLMs: A Case Study of Cross-Culture Aesthetic Stylistics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.27296/) (2026)
- [CultureConverse: A Multilingual Multi-turn Simulation Harness for Culturally Grounded Assistance in East and Southeast Asia](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.28405/) (2026)
- [How do LLMs Evaluate Perceived Moral Agency? Investigating Moral Decision-Making in Human-Artificial Agents Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.05037/) (2026)
- [CultureMINE: Datasets and Methods for Improving the Cultural Capabilities of NLP Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.22494/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have established them as powerful tools across numerous domains. However, persistent concerns about embedded biases, such as gender, racial, and cultural biases arising from their training data, raise significant questions about the ethical use and societal consequences of these technologies. This study investigates the extent to which LLMs capture cross-cultural differences and similarities in moral perspectives. Specifically, we examine whether LLM outputs align with patterns observed in international survey data on moral attitudes. To this end, we employ three complementary methods: (1) comparing variances in moral scores produced by models versus those reported in surveys, (2) conducting cluster alignment analyses to assess correspondence between country groupings derived from LLM outputs and survey data, and (3) directly probing models with comparative prompts using systematically chosen token pairs. Our results reveal that current LLMs often fail to reproduce the full spectrum of cross-cultural moral variation, tending to compress differences and exhibit low alignment with empirical survey patterns. These findings highlight a pressing need for more robust approaches to mitigate biases and improve cultural representativeness in LLMs. We conclude by discussing the implications for the responsible development and global deployment of LLMs, emphasizing fairness and ethical alignment.