Randomness, Not Representation: The Unreliability of Evaluating Cultural Alignment in LLMs

Research on the 'cultural alignment' of Large Language Models (LLMs) has emerged in response to growing interest in understanding representation across diverse stakeholders. Current approaches to evaluating cultural alignment through survey-based assessments that borrow from social science methodologies often overlook systematic robustness checks. Here, we identify and test three assumptions behind current survey-based evaluation methods: (1) Stability: that cultural alignment is a property of LLMs rather than an artifact of evaluation design, (2) Extrapolability: that alignment with one culture on a narrow set of issues predicts alignment with that culture on others, and (3) Steerability: that LLMs can be reliably prompted to represent specific cultural perspectives. Through experiments examining both explicit and implicit preferences of leading LLMs, we find a high level of instability across presentation formats, incoherence between evaluated versus held-out cultural dimensions, and erratic behavior under prompt steering. We show that these inconsistencies can cause the results of an evaluation to be very sensitive to minor variations in methodology. Finally, we demonstrate in a case study on evaluation design that narrow experiments and a selective assessment of evidence can be used to paint an incomplete picture of LLMs' cultural alignment properties. Overall, these results highlight significant limitations of current survey-based approaches to evaluating the cultural alignment of LLMs and highlight a need for systematic robustness checks and red-teaming for evaluation results. Data and code are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/akhan02/cultural-dimension-cover-letters and https://github.com/ariba-k/llm-cultural-alignment-evaluation, respectively.