📝 SummarXiv

Abstract

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.