CIVICS: Building a Dataset for Examining Culturally-Informed Values in Large Language Models

The initial motivation for our research on the ethical variations of LLMs across multiple languages was inspired by an exploratory study conducted by Johnson et al. (2022). Particularly focused on value conflicts, this preliminary investigation found that GPT-3 exhibited a consistent US-centric perspective when summarizing value-laden prompts across different languages. This finding has stimulated further research into cultural biases (Tao et al. 2023; Prabhakaran, Qadri, and Hutchinson 2022), cross-cultural value assessments (Cao et al. 2023), and cultural adaptability of LLMs (Rao et al. 2024). Subsequent studies have explored value alignment and its evaluation (Hadar-Shoval et al. 2024; Liu et al. 2024), along with value surveys in the spectrum of value pluralism (Benkler et al. 2023) – we explore this work in more detail in Section 2. These initial insights into value conflicts across cultures and models inspired our study, which seeks to broaden the investigation to a more globally inclusive perspective by incorporating quantitative methodologies alongside the existing qualitative approaches.

To address the identified gaps in existing research, particularly the need for greater cultural-inclusivity and robust quantitative analysis, our primary contribution is the collection and curation of the “CIVICS: Culturally-Informed & Values-Inclusive Corpus for Societal impacts” dataset. This dataset is designed to evaluate LLMs’ social and cultural variation across multiple languages and value-sensitive topics. CIVICS is a hand-crafted, multilingual dataset spanning five languages and nine national contexts. Samples were collected from documents published by official and authoritative entities, such as national governments, by the authors in their respective native language (§3). This manual collection process ensures the cultural and linguistic authenticity of the prompts, avoiding the inaccuracies often associated with automated translation tools. In this sense, by relying on native speakers to select existing text sources, we aim to capture the nuanced expression of values as naturally articulated within each culture, thereby improving the dataset’s relevance and applicability. All samples were annotated with finer-grained topic labels to highlight the specific values at play (§4). We detail the annotation process adopted, including annotator demographics (§4.1) and the annotation protocol (§4.2). Our approach seeks to avoid some known limitations of crowdsourcing, such as variability in data quality and the introduction of unintended biases, ensuring a more controlled and consistent dataset.

Moreover, our work is intended to inform future approaches to culturally-informed dataset curation that could extend to broader linguistic and cultural contexts. Hence, we have composed the CIVICS dataset and the accompanying data curation methodologies emphasizing reproducibility and adaptability. Our approach is informed by the following research questions:

• •

  How can the methodology used for curating the CIVICS dataset be expanded to incorporate a wider range of cultural values from diverse countries and languages, thereby enhancing its global applicability and ensuring evaluations are as representative as possible on a global scale?

• •

  In order to capture and reflect diverse ethical viewpoints, how can the current methodology for collecting and curating the CIVICS dataset be modified to accommodate cultural and linguistic diversity across new regions?

• •

  How can our preliminary findings from the CIVICS dataset’s initial applications inform techniques for expanding its coverage to additional languages and cultural contexts?

By offering a collection of value-laden prompts and initial pilot studies, our dataset helps to explore LLM responses across different languages and cultural contexts. In this way, we aim to guide future research that mitigates the perpetuation of biases and the marginalization of diverse communities, cultures, and languages. Through our work, we also push future researchers to apply and adapt our approach, extending the geographical and linguistic reach of the dataset. Ultimately, we hope this forward-looking perspective will ensure that our research contributes to the ongoing development and improvement of ethical evaluations in AI, fostering broader, more inclusive investigations into the societal impacts of LLMs.

Additionally, we aim to support further work on evaluation techniques, statistical analyses and quantitative metrics. To this end, we showcase two ways in which CIVICS can be used to highlight the societal influences and value systems portrayed by open-weight LLMs when presented with value-laden prompts (§5). Specifically, we assess LLM agreement with statements in CIVICS using model log probabilities (§5.1), as well as open-ended model responses (§5.2).

In each case, our experiments aim to lay the groundwork for understanding the different behaviors of a set of open-weight LLMs when they process ethically-charged statements. We are driven to 1) discern how these models treat the same societal or ethical inquiries across various languages, 2) how the phrasing of these inquiries shapes their responses, and 3) identify the conditions that compel LLMs to abstain from responding to sensitive questions, probing whether such behaviors are consistent across diverse linguistic and thematic landscapes.

Navigating the challenges of ensuring that LLMs respect some desired human values reflects the inherent complexity of value pluralism (Benkler et al. 2023). Recognizing that values are not universal truths but vary across domains and cultures (Kasirzadeh and Gabriel 2023), ongoing theoretical and empirical research aims to understand what values are encoded in LLMs (Santurkar et al. 2023; Atari et al. 2023).

Recent scholarship has proposed datasets, evaluation methods, and benchmarks to capture the diversity of political, cultural, and moral values encoded in LLMs. These efforts often leverage established tools from social science research. Social science studies such as the World Value Survey (WVS; Haerpfer et al. 2022), Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory (Hofstede 2001), the Political Compass Test (Political Compass 2021), or Pew Research questionnaires are adapted to probe LLMs. Arora, Kaffee, and Augenstein (2023) evaluate multilingual LLMs on survey items from Hofstede (2001) and the WVS, translated into different languages, and find that while LLM responses vary depending on the language of a prompt, they do not necessarily align with human survey responses from the respective countries.

Santurkar et al. (2023) curate OpinionQA from Pew Research “American Trends Panel” questionnaires, and find that LLMs mirror viewpoints of liberal, educated, and wealthy individuals. Building on this, Durmus et al. (2023) construct GlobalOpinionQA from Pew Research Center’s “Global Attitudes” surveys and the WVS, and show that prompting LLMs to emulate opinions of certain nationalities steers their responses much more towards survey responses from different nationalities than prompting LLMs in the respective languages. Jiang et al. (2022) probe LLM viewpoints on US politicians and demographic groups using the American National Election Studies 2020 Exploratory Testing Survey (ANES 2020), while Hartmann, Schwenzow, and Witte (2023) evaluate LLMs on questionnaire items from German and Dutch voting advice applications. Feng et al. (2023) evaluate LLMs on the Political Compass Test (Political Compass 2021), and show that BERT family models score on the conservative end of the spectrum, while GPT models produce more liberal views.¹¹1For a summary of studies on LLMs which use the Political Compass Test, see Röttger et al. (2024).

Another avenue of research has examined LLM reasoning about moral scenarios or dilemmas, sometimes in light of differing cultural, political or socio-demographic backgrounds. Simmons (2023) probe LLMs with scenarios from MoralStories (Emelin et al. 2021), ETHICS (Hendrycks et al. 2020), and Social Chemistry 101 (Forbes et al. 2020) asking them to adopt a liberal or conservative persona. Santy et al. (2023) find that GPT-4 and Delphi’s behavior on Social Chemistry 101 (Forbes et al. 2020) and Dynahate (Vidgen et al. 2021) aligns with views of Western, White, English-speaking, college-educated and younger persons. Scherrer et al. (2024) and Nie et al. (2024) probe LLMs’ stances on moral scenarios. They find that LLMs largely agree with humans on unambiguous moral scenarios and express uncertainty when prompted with more ambiguous scenarios.

Among recently released datasets which capture cross-cultural values and social norms, is the NORMAD dataset (Rao et al. 2024) which contains stories of everyday situations in English exemplifying social etiquette in $75$ countries. Fung et al. (2024) introduce CultureAtlas to assess cross-cultural commonsense knowledge. In the PRISM dataset (Kirk et al. 2024), a culturally diverse cohort of crowdworkers converses with LLMs on topics of their choosing. The chat histories contain, i.a., value-laden or controversial topics such as immigration or euthanasia. Contrary to our work, Kirk et al. (2024)’s PRISM focuses on capturing human preference ratings rather than analyzing variations in LLM outputs and is limited to English. Our dataset, CIVICS, investigates the variation in how LLMs handle ethically sensitive prompts across multiple languages, stressing the direct comparison of LLM responses rather than human ratings. Furthermore, datasets and analyses that consider languages other than English typically resort to using machine translation models to translate existing English survey items (Arora, Kaffee, and Augenstein 2023; Durmus et al. 2023; Li and Callison-Burch 2023) or synthetic data generation (Li et al. 2023; Lee et al. 2024). Among crowdsourced datasets are C-Values (Xu et al. 2023), an English-Chinese safety dataset, and SeaEval (Wang et al. 2023) which contains, among other things, reasoning tasks about South-East Asian social norms. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to manually curate a dataset on ethically-laden topics featuring five languages and nine national contexts, collected by a team of native speakers.

The idea that values are expressed through language is a source of debate and discussion among different but related scientific fields. Scholars debate how moral judgments and cultural values are articulated through specific linguistic terms and structures, and how the potential variations in these expressions might vary between different languages. This variability underlines the complex relationship between language and the sociocultural contexts within which it operates, suggesting that language does more than merely convey information–it actively shapes and is shaped by the values of its speakers.

In this context, Nordby (2008) discusses how values and cultural identity influence and are influenced by communication, viewed from a philosophical perspective on language. Language appears not just as a medium of expression but as actively sha** and reinforcing cultural values and identities. Additionally, it outlines how the structure and usage of language can either support or restrict the expression of values and cultural identities, making communication a vital method for their negotiation, maintenance, and evolution over time.

Expanding on these discussions, another perspective reveals how language serves as a fundamental cultural value intricately knitted into a group’s identity and worldview (Smolicz 1980). As Smolicz (1980) points out, language is not just a tool for communication but a mirror reflecting a society’s cultural beliefs, traditions, and experiences. It is one of the bases that defines a culture and its members, underlining the deep influence language has on sha** and expressing the collective values and identities within different communities.

Moreover, cognitive science and moral psychology research also offers insights into how language choices influence moral decision-making. Costa et al. (2014) found that individuals tend to make more utilitarian decisions in moral dilemmas when presented in a foreign language rather than their native one. This phenomenon is likely due to the diminished emotional impact of a foreign language, which encourages a more reasoned decision-making process focused on outcomes. The study highlighted this effect, particularly in the trolley problem dilemma (Foot 1967), where decisions in a foreign language leaned more towards utilitarian solutions than the native language. These findings highlight how the choice of language can shift moral judgments, supporting the notion that language conveys and shapes moral values (Costa et al. 2014).

The research discussed in this section supports the notion that language is a key vehicle for expressing and understanding values. The studies suggest that language embodies cultural values and influences moral reasoning, highlighting its critical role in ethical considerations. These findings are especially relevant to our study; the observation that moral judgments vary with language use stresses the importance of considering language effects in cross-lingual LLM evaluation, making it an important consideration for future research and methodology design in assessing LLM value alignments.

In constructing the CIVICS dataset, we deliberately chose to include languages where our linguistic proficiency and cultural understanding are strongest. This ensured that the prompts we crafted were grammatically and syntactically accurate, and culturally and contextually relevant. To achieve this, it was important that co-authors possessed a native or near-native command of each language included, allowing us to appreciate the subtleties that could influence the LLMs’ responses.

We were particularly careful in selecting variants of English and French. For French, we included statements from sources in both Canada and France, aiming to capture the linguistic divergences and cultural distinctions between these two variants. For English, we selected statements from sources in Singapore, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. This diversity provides a multiplicity of perspectives, reflecting the global usage of English and the wide-ranging societal norms and values that can be embedded within different English-speaking communities.

By incorporating Italian, German, and Turkish into our dataset, we extend our reach into different European and West Asian linguistic spheres, each with its own rich cultural background and societal issues that could influence the ethical positions taken by LLMs. Turkish in particular was prioritized to broaden the scope of this work beyond purely Western narratives.

The data selection process for our research is driven by the aim of capturing a broad spectrum of ethically-laden topics, with a primary focus on LGBTQI rights, social welfare, immigration, disability rights, and surrogacy. These topics have been chosen due to their direct relevance to the pressing issues that dominate the socio-political landscapes of the regions where our chosen languages are prevalent. They embody the immediacy of current events and reflect the diverse perspectives inherent to each region’s value systems. By doing so, our dataset captures the dynamic interplay between language, ethics, and culture, offering insights into how different value systems manifest within and respond to these key societal and divisive discussions. Detailed sourcing of our prompts ensures transparency and traceability, with a comprehensive list and description provided in Table 8 in the Appendix, which will be populated with the requisite information to facilitate further research.

Our methodology for selecting text excerpts for the prompts involved a deliberate process aimed at probing the ethical and cultural dimensions interpreted by open-weight LLMs. We sourced our material from authoritative entities such as government bodies, institutional frameworks, civil rights societies focused on ethical issues, and significant national news agencies, including Agence France Presse, ANSA, and Deutsche Presse Agentur. Detailed information can be found in Appendix D, where we list all sources used for the prompts across different languages. This method ensures that our prompts are embedded in diverse culturally sensitive contexts. Each prompt was selected to clearly articulate a stance on significant issues, such as, for instance, the ethical concerns surrounding surrogacy.

By emphasizing a rights-based approach, our methodology aimed to integrate a sensitivity to culturally contingent values and their specific contexts, such as variations in the understanding and prioritization of rights and ethical norms across languages.²²2See full details of the annotation process in Section 4. This aspect was further enriched by addressing inquiries regarding the collection protocol for civil and political documents, providing a standardized and replicable approach across different linguistic and national settings. This process extends to translating prompts into English, where we employed a strategy designed to maintain the integrity of the original ethical stances while accommodating linguistic diversity.

All data points were annotated by five authors of the paper. Annotators had varied academic backgrounds in, e.g., philosophical or technical NLP research. Three annotators hold doctorates, while two are graduate students. All annotators were between the ages of 25 and 45. Four of the annotators identify as female, while one identifies as male. All annotators were White and are based in the US, UK, or the EU.

The annotation process employed an iterative procedure, manually refining the labeling scheme to increase its precision and relevance to our research’s objectives.

In our data collection process, annotators were tasked with labeling each prompt according to the multiple value labels relevant to its topic.

During our labeling process, we have motivated and referenced our dataset’s values, drawing upon authoritative international documents and frameworks to ensure each value is grounded in recognized human rights principles. Our approach takes inspiration from global human rights documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to find all references according to each label. Linked to this approach, internal documents from national governments, international institutions, organizations and press agencies were evaluated and included in our annotation process and labels’ motivations. Therefore, each annotation and corresponding label were manually added to reflect fine-grained, rights-based considerations pertinent to each topic.

To give a few examples, the definitions related to LGBTQI rights, such as anti-discrimination and health support, are anchored in articles from the Yogyakarta Principles and the World Health Organization’s standards. These sources state the rights to equality, non-discrimination, and access to healthcare without prejudice for the LGBTQI community. To further validate the authenticity and appropriateness of our approach, a representative from the LGBTQI community was involved in manually reviewing a sample of our prompts, labels and motivations. This collaboration helped us ensure that our interpretations and labeling accurately captured the value expressed within the chosen prompts, improving the legitimacy of our dataset and avoiding cultural appropriation.

Moreover, our labels around social welfare, such as the right to education and the right to family life, draw from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These documents highlight the importance of social protection, access to education, and the protection of family life as fundamental elements of a just society. Each of these references and specific motivations, which inform the labeling of our dataset, can be found in Table 4 in the Appendix.

Our first set of evaluations focuses on base models – i.e., models trained for the task of next token prediction.

Next, we prompt models to generate long-form responses to prompts featuring the statements in CIVICS. For each statement and response pair, we then use an external model to automatically annotate whether these long-form responses can be characterized as a refusal to answer from the model, and otherwise to rate the agreement between the statement and response on a Likert scale. For statements in French, German, Italian, and Turkish, we prompt the models both in the corresponding languages and in English using translated versions of the statements. Table 2 shows examples of model responses to two statements from the dataset that trigger different responses across models.

Long-form responses possess two main characteristics that are relevant to analyzing model behavior. First, recent work has shown that, especially on politically charged topics, models can give different and sometimes contrary answers when forced to choose between pre-determined answers than what would be expressed through a free-text response (Röttger et al. 2024), which is closer to the way they are used in products like chatbots. Second, long-form responses provide additional relevant information about a model’s dynamics. Neutral answers to a given statement, for example, may come from a lack of information, a refusal to answer on safety grounds, or an acknowledgement of context-dependence, which are typically only distinguishable from each other in the full answers. Long-form responses also typically provide grounds for agreement or disagreement which provide valuable information about the values and assumptions encoded. To help leverage this information, we provide a live demo to explore the model responses for the different languages and topics. ²⁰²⁰20https://hf.co/spaces/CIVICS-dataset/CIVICS-responses

In the rest of this Section, we present a quantitative analysis of the agreement labels as a starting point for further investigation, and strongly encourage users of the dataset to leverage these visualization tools to support further qualitative and quantitative analysis.