Aida Davani

Sunipa Dev, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Rutledge Chin Feman et al.

As generative AI technologies are increasingly being launched across the globe, assessing their competence to operate in different cultural contexts is exigently becoming a priority. While recent years have seen numerous and much-needed efforts on cultural benchmarking, these efforts have largely focused on specific aspects of culture and evaluation. While these efforts contribute to our understanding of cultural competence, a unified and systematic evaluation approach is needed for us as a field to comprehensively assess diverse cultural dimensions at scale. Drawing on measurement theory, we present a principled framework to aggregate multifaceted indicators of cultural capabilities into a unified assessment of cultural intelligence. We start by developing a working definition of culture that includes identifying core domains of culture. We then introduce a broad-purpose, systematic, and extensible framework for assessing cultural intelligence of AI systems. Drawing on theoretical framing from psychometric measurement validity theory, we decouple the background concept (i.e., cultural intelligence) from its operationalization via measurement. We conceptualize cultural intelligence as a suite of core capabilities spanning diverse domains, which we then operationalize through a set of indicators designed for reliable measurement. Finally, we identify the considerations, challenges, and research pathways to meaningfully measure these indicators, specifically focusing on data collection, probing strategies, and evaluation metrics.

Erin MacMurray van Liemt, Aida Davani, Sinchana Kumbale et al.

Cultural representation in Large Language Model (LLM) outputs has primarily been evaluated through the proxies of cultural diversity and factual accuracy. However, a crucial gap remains in assessing cultural alignment: the degree to which generated content mirrors how native populations perceive and prioritize their own cultural facets. In this paper, we introduce a human-centered framework to evaluate the alignment of LLM generations with local expectations. First, we establish a human-derived ground-truth baseline of importance vectors, called Cultural Importance Vectors based on an induced set of culturally significant facets from open-ended survey responses collected across nine countries. Next, we introduce a method to compute model-derived Cultural Representation Vectors of an LLM based on a syntactically diversified prompt-set and apply it to three frontier LLMs (Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.5 Haiku). Our investigation of the alignment between the human-derived Cultural Importance and model-derived Cultural Representations reveals a Western-centric calibration for some of the models where alignment decreases as a country's cultural distance from the US increases. Furthermore, we identify highly correlated, systemic error signatures ($ρ> 0.97$) across all models, which over-index on some cultural markers while neglecting the deep-seated social and value-based priorities of users. Our approach moves beyond simple diversity metrics toward evaluating the fidelity of AI-generated content in authentically capturing the nuanced hierarchies of global cultures.

Robin Schimmelpfennig, Mark Díaz, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran et al.

Over a billion users globally interact with AI systems engineered to mimic human traits. This development raises concerns that anthropomorphism, the attribution of human characteristics to AI, may foster over-reliance and misplaced trust. Yet, causal effects of humanlike AI design on users remain untested in ecologically valid, cross-cultural settings, leaving policy discussions to rely on theoretical assumptions derived largely from Western populations. Here we conducted two experiments (N=3,500) across ten countries representing a wide cultural spectrum, involving real-time, open-ended interactions with a state-of-the-art chatbot. We found users evaluate human-likeness based on pragmatic interactional cues (conversation flow, response speed, perspective-taking) rather than abstract theory-driven attributes emphasized in academic discourse (e.g., sentience, consciousness). Furthermore, while experimentally increasing chatbot's human-likeness reliably increased anthropomorphism across all sampled countries, it did not universally increase trust or engagement. Instead, effects were culturally contingent; design choices fostering engagement or trust in one country may reduce them in another. These findings challenge prevailing assumptions that humanlike AI poses uniform psychological risks and necessarily increases trust. Risk is not inherent to humanlike design but emerges from its interplay with cultural context. Consequently, governance frameworks must move beyond universalist approaches to account for this global heterogeneity.

Aida Davani, Mark Díaz, Dylan Baker et al.

Perception of offensiveness is inherently subjective, shaped by the lived experiences and socio-cultural values of the perceivers. Recent years have seen substantial efforts to build AI-based tools that can detect offensive language at scale, as a means to moderate social media platforms, and to ensure safety of conversational AI technologies such as ChatGPT and Bard. However, existing approaches treat this task as a technical endeavor, built on top of data annotated for offensiveness by a global crowd workforce without any attention to the crowd workers' provenance or the values their perceptions reflect. We argue that cultural and psychological factors play a vital role in the cognitive processing of offensiveness, which is critical to consider in this context. We re-frame the task of determining offensiveness as essentially a matter of moral judgment -- deciding the boundaries of ethically wrong vs. right language within an implied set of socio-cultural norms. Through a large-scale cross-cultural study based on 4309 participants from 21 countries across 8 cultural regions, we demonstrate substantial cross-cultural differences in perceptions of offensiveness. More importantly, we find that individual moral values play a crucial role in shaping these variations: moral concerns about Care and Purity are significant mediating factors driving cross-cultural differences. These insights are of crucial importance as we build AI models for the pluralistic world, where the values they espouse should aim to respect and account for moral values in diverse geo-cultural contexts.

Ding Wang, Mark Díaz, Charvi Rastogi et al.

Understanding what constitutes safety in AI-generated content is complex. While developers often rely on predefined taxonomies, real-world safety judgments also involve personal, social, and cultural perceptions of harm. This paper examines how annotators evaluate the safety of AI-generated images, focusing on the qualitative reasoning behind their judgments. Analyzing 5,372 open-ended comments, we find that annotators consistently invoke moral, emotional, and contextual reasoning that extends beyond structured safety categories. Many reflect on potential harm to others more than to themselves, grounding their judgments in lived experience, collective risk, and sociocultural awareness. Beyond individual perceptions, we also find that the structure of the task itself -- including annotation guidelines -- shapes how annotators interpret and express harm. Guidelines influence not only which images are flagged, but also the moral judgment behind the justifications. Annotators frequently cite factors such as image quality, visual distortion, and mismatches between prompt and output as contributing to perceived harm dimensions, which are often overlooked in standard evaluation frameworks. Our findings reveal that existing safety pipelines miss critical forms of reasoning that annotators bring to the task. We argue for evaluation designs that scaffold moral reflection, differentiate types of harm, and make space for subjective, context-sensitive interpretations of AI-generated content.

Akshita Jha, Aida Davani, Chandan K. Reddy et al.

Stereotype benchmark datasets are crucial to detect and mitigate social stereotypes about groups of people in NLP models. However, existing datasets are limited in size and coverage, and are largely restricted to stereotypes prevalent in the Western society. This is especially problematic as language technologies gain hold across the globe. To address this gap, we present SeeGULL, a broad-coverage stereotype dataset, built by utilizing generative capabilities of large language models such as PaLM, and GPT-3, and leveraging a globally diverse rater pool to validate the prevalence of those stereotypes in society. SeeGULL is in English, and contains stereotypes about identity groups spanning 178 countries across 8 different geo-political regions across 6 continents, as well as state-level identities within the US and India. We also include fine-grained offensiveness scores for different stereotypes and demonstrate their global disparities. Furthermore, we include comparative annotations about the same groups by annotators living in the region vs. those that are based in North America, and demonstrate that within-region stereotypes about groups differ from those prevalent in North America. CONTENT WARNING: This paper contains stereotype examples that may be offensive.