# The fragility of "cultural tendencies" in LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.05869 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.05869/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 13 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1607.06520/) (2016)
- [A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03109/) (2023)
- [Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14050/) (2020)
- [Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.07187/) (2016)
- [Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00770/) (2023)
- [A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.07927/) (2024)
- [Role-Play with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16367/) (2023)
- [Towards Measuring and Modeling "Culture" in LLMs: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.15412/) (2024)
- [Does Prompt Formatting Have Any Impact on LLM Performance?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.10541/) (2024)
- [Generative Language Models Exhibit Social Identity Biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15819/) (2023)
- [Why AI is Harder Than We Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.12871/) (2021)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In a recent study, Lu, Song, and Zhang (2025) (LSZ) propose that large language models (LLMs), when prompted in different languages, display culturally specific tendencies. They report that the two models (i.e., GPT and ERNIE) respond in more interdependent and holistic ways when prompted in Chinese, and more independent and analytic ways when prompted in English. LSZ attribute these differences to deep-seated cultural patterns in the models, claiming that prompt language alone can induce substantial cultural shifts. While we acknowledge the empirical patterns they observed, we find their experiments, methods, and interpretations problematic. In this paper, we critically re-evaluate the methodology, theoretical framing, and conclusions of LSZ. We argue that the reported "cultural tendencies" are not stable traits but fragile artifacts of specific models and task design. To test this, we conducted targeted replications using a broader set of LLMs and a larger number of test items. Our results show that prompt language has minimal effect on outputs, challenging LSZ's claim that these models encode grounded cultural beliefs.