# CCD-Bench: Probing Cultural Conflict in Large Language Model Decision-Making

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.03553 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.03553/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 6 of its 18 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Oct 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [BLEnD: A Benchmark for LLMs on Everyday Knowledge in Diverse Cultures and Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.09948/) (2024)
- [LLM-GLOBE: A Benchmark Evaluating the Cultural Values Embedded in LLM Output](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.06032/) (2024)
- [Cultural Value Differences of LLMs: Prompt, Language, and Model Size](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.16891/) (2024)
- [LLMs as mediators: Can they diagnose conflicts accurately?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14675/) (2024)
- [How large language models judge and influence human cooperation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.00088/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Towards Cross-lingual Values Judgment: A Consensus-Pluralism Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.17283/) (2026)
- [GYROval: A Robust Benchmark for Cultural Value Orientation in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.18384/) (2026)
- [Deflecting the Value Compass: Interacting with Large Language Models Temporarily Shifts Human Value Priorities Toward Personal Focus](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.25586/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Although large language models (LLMs) are increasingly implicated in interpersonal and societal decision-making, their ability to navigate explicit conflicts between legitimately different cultural value systems remains largely unexamined. Existing benchmarks predominantly target cultural knowledge (CulturalBench), value prediction (WorldValuesBench), or single-axis bias diagnostics (CDEval); none evaluate how LLMs adjudicate when multiple culturally grounded values directly clash. We address this gap with CCD-Bench, a benchmark that assesses LLM decision-making under cross-cultural value conflict. CCD-Bench comprises 2,182 open-ended dilemmas spanning seven domains, each paired with ten anonymized response options corresponding to the ten GLOBE cultural clusters. These dilemmas are presented using a stratified Latin square to mitigate ordering effects. We evaluate 17 non-reasoning LLMs. Models disproportionately prefer Nordic Europe (mean 20.2 percent) and Germanic Europe (12.4 percent), while options for Eastern Europe and the Middle East and North Africa are underrepresented (5.6 to 5.8 percent). Although 87.9 percent of rationales reference multiple GLOBE dimensions, this pluralism is superficial: models recombine Future Orientation and Performance Orientation, and rarely ground choices in Assertiveness or Gender Egalitarianism (both under 3 percent). Ordering effects are negligible (Cramer's V less than 0.10), and symmetrized KL divergence shows clustering by developer lineage rather than geography. These patterns suggest that current alignment pipelines promote a consensus-oriented worldview that underserves scenarios demanding power negotiation, rights-based reasoning, or gender-aware analysis. CCD-Bench shifts evaluation beyond isolated bias detection toward pluralistic decision making and highlights the need for alignment strategies that substantively engage diverse worldviews.