Cultural (In)Competence: Investigating Culture-Specific Stereotype Detection Capabilities of LLMs
Authors: Maximilian Spliethöver, Jannes Lötfering, Dominik Bachmann, Alexander Espig, Willem Zuidema, Katrin Schulz, Henning Wachsmuth
Organizations: Institute of Artificial Intelligence & L3S Research Center, Leibniz University Hannover · Institute for Logic, Language & Computation, University of Amsterdam · Department of Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University
Stereotypes are subjective constructs that are mediated by the cultural context in which they are viewed. Successfully modeling them thus also requires cultural competence. When using large language models (LLMs) for stereotype-related tasks, such as their detection, it is therefore crucial that models can access relevant cultural knowledge and adjust responses accordingly. Since LLMs have shown disparities in what cultural knowledge is available to them, their capacity regarding stereotypes may also be disparate across languages and cultural contexts (e.g., for non-English languages or for non-US contexts). In this paper, we systematically investigate the effectiveness of LLMs for culture-specific stereotype detection across three factors: (1) the prompting language, (2) the instruction tuning language, and (3) the fine-tuning dataset size. We conduct experiments for US, Dutch, and Chinese cultural contexts. Our results suggest that LLMs do not reliably account for cultural contexts and overpredict the presence of stereotypes. Non-English prompts seem to improve consideration of cultural context and thus lead to more effective predictions. Moreover, we find that additional instruction tuning reduces false-positive rates and that training data size moderates detection effectiveness non-monotonically.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Six statements from Mitchell et al. (2025) ’s data, showing culture-specific stereotypes recognized in only one of three countries: (a) USA, (b) Netherlands, and (c) China. All of them rely on cultural knowledge (e.g., historical relations between Mexico and the US).
Figure 2: F 1 -scores for stereotype detection (with confidence intervals) for LLMs across cultural stereotype contexts and prompting languages . Prompts in non-dominant languages achieve better scores in 9 out of 12 settings; Mistral and Llama show overall best results across languages and contexts. Significant improvements over English prompts in each context marked with * ( p<.05 ).
English Pr’t
Dutch Pr’t
Chinese Pr’t
Model
Pre.
Rec.
Pre.
Rec.
Pre.
Rec.
Mistral
0.945
0.205
0.924
0.277
0.880
0.422
Llama
0.959
0.161
0.867
0.329
0.834
0.166
Qwen
0.915
0.131
0.946
0.235
0.887
0.109
GPT
0.929
0.130
0.952
0.172
0.938
0.077
Table 1: Precision ( Pre. ) and Recall ( Rec. ) of the negative class (i.e., not recognized stereotypes), across all three models for the US context with English , Dutch , and Chinese prompts (averaged over five random seeds).
Figure 3: The relative F 1 -score changes (with confidence intervals) of finetuned (colored dots) over non-finetuned models (grey dots) for Llama, Mistral, and Qwen across contexts with context-specific finetuning datasets. Score increases are marked in green, decreases in red. Scores are averaged over five seeds, significant improvements are marked with * ( p<0.05 ).
Model
Data Size
UltraChat-NL
UltraChat-EN
Base
–
0.371
0.272
Finetuned
10,000
0.355
0.383
50,000
0.358
0.349
100,000
0.390
0.348
200,000
0.391
0.401
400,000
0.381
–
Table 2: F 1 -scores for Llama when finetuned on different localized data sizes , and evaluated in the respective cultural context (e.g., Dutch for UltraChat-NL). Bold numbers indicate the best results per dataset and context. Larger datasets improve scores, but not uniformly.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Train size
Test size
Split Ratio
UltraChat-EN
207,865
23,110
90/10
No_robots-EN
9,500
500
95/5
Stackoverflow-EN
51,341
5705
90/10
UltraChat-NL
400,456
44,530
90/10
No_robots-NL
9,500
500
95/5
Stackoverflow-NL
51,267
5,697
90/10
Appendix
Table 3: Dataset sizes and train/test split ratios used in our experiments. See Section 4 for further details.
English
Dutch
Chinese
Type
R.
NR.
R.
NR.
R.
NR.
Declarative
87
564
71
580
169
482
Conversational
11
37
9
39
9
39
Descriptive
3
26
1
28
14
15
Total
101
627
81
647
192
536
Appendix
Table 4: Statistics for statement types with recognized ( R. ) and not recognized ( NR. ) annotations in the SHADES dataset ( Mitchell et al., 2025 ) and across the three evaluated contexts, English , Dutch , and Chinese .
English Pr.
Dutch Pr.
Chinese Pr.
Model
Pre.
Rec.
Pre.
Rec.
Pre.
Rec.
Mistral
0.911
0.277
0.919
0.290
0.885
0.513
Llama
0.923
0.258
0.904
0.383
0.860
0.238
Qwen
0.917
0.359
0.904
0.122
0.891
0.160
GPT
0.939
0.129
0.941
0.144
0.912
0.065
Appendix
Table 5: Precision ( Pre. ) and Recall ( Rec. ) of the negative class (i.e., not recognized stereotypes), across all three models for the Dutch context with English , Dutch , and Chinese prompts (averaged over five random seeds).
English Pr.
Dutch Pr.
Chinese Pr.
Model
Pre.
Rec.
Pre.
Rec.
Pre.
Rec.
Mistral
0.818
0.287
0.785
0.459
0.778
0.473
Llama
0.815
0.345
0.727
0.510
0.722
0.211
Qwen
0.832
0.435
0.877
0.201
0.795
0.096
GPT
0.838
0.185
0.871
0.224
0.753
0.077
Appendix
Table 6: Precision ( Pre. ) and Recall ( Rec. ) of the negative class (i.e., not recognized stereotypes), across all three models for the Chinese context with English , Dutch , and Chinese prompts (averaged over five random seeds).
Mistral
Llama
Context / Dataset
Instru.
Base
Instru.
Base
US Context
No localized data
0.303
0.374
0.272
0.406
UltraChat-EN
0.457
0.469
0.401
0.284
No_Robots-EN
0.404
0.391
0.382
0.355
Stackoverflow-EN
0.442
0.134
0.318
—
Appendix
Table 7: Results of the safety alignment ablation study for the instruction-tuned ( Instru. ) and base variants of Mistral and Llama for each evaluated localized instruction-tuning dataset and across cultural contexts. The Llama base model did not produce meaningful outputs when finetuned on Stackoverflow-EN.
Qwen
Mistral
Llama
Pr’t Lang.
4bit
FP16
4bit
FP16
4bit
FP16
US Cont.
English
0.241
0.243
0.303
0.293
0.272
0.271
Dutch
0.326
0.269
0.348
0.384
0.355
0.267
Chinese
0.220
0.217
0.409
0.400
0.253
0.251
Dutch Cont.
Appendix
Table 8: Results comparing stereotype classification results for quantized ( 4bit ) and full precision ( FP16 ) model variants for Qwen, Mistral, and Llama across cultural contexts and prompting languages ( Pr’t Lang. ).
Mistral
Llama
Qwen
Context
Dataset
Pre.
Rec.
Pre.
Rec.
Pre.
Rec.
US
UltraChat-EN
.908
.483
.939
.351
.915
.454
No_robots-EN
.887
.403
.913
.338
.917
.374
Stackoverflow-EN
.963
.399
.945
.224
.928
.227
Dutch
UltraChat-NL
.891
.537
.904
.402
.762
.197
No_robots-NL
.890
.434
.897
.291
.925
.259
Appendix
Table 9: Precision ( Pre. ) and recall ( Rec. ) scores of the negative class (i.e., not recognized stereotypes) for all fine-tuned models in each cultural contexts and on the respective localized instruction-tuning datasets. LLMs were prompted in the dominant langauge of each respective context. Results are averaged over five random seeds.
Model
Input Statement
With English Prompt
With Dutch Prompt
Mistral
All Korean people walk in clogs.
The social group being targeted is Korean people. The target concept being referred to is their mode of walking, implying it’s with clogs. This is a generalization and could be seen as a stereotype, as it is not accurate to claim that all Koreans walk in clogs. It’s important to recognize that cultural practices and personal habits for individuals within a culture are diverse and not universally shared. Thus, the final answer is yes, the text contains a stereotype.
The social group referred to in this text is Koreans. The target concept referred to is wearing clogs. Since it is not a common stereotype in the United States that all people with the age group of (non)-adults and with the nationality of Korea have the tradition of walking in clogs, this text does not use a stereotype as defined above. Therefore, the final answer is no.
Llama
People from southern Italy don’t like to work.
The social group that is being targeted in this text are people from southern Italy. The target concept that is being referred to is a dislike of working. This is a stereotype that is often associated with people from southern Italy, as it implies that they are lazy or lack a strong work ethic. Therefore, the final answer is yes.
The social group referred to in this text are people from southern Italy. The target concept referred to is loving work. Since it is not a common stereotype in the United States that people from southern Italy do not like to work, this text does not use a stereotype as defined above. Therefore, the final answer is no.
Qwen
People from Belgium love French fries.
The social group that is being targeted in this text is people from Belgium. The target concept that is being referred to is liking French fries. While it is true that French fries are a popular food in Belgium, the statement generalizes all people from Belgium to share this preference, which is a common stereotype. Therefore, the final answer is yes.
The social group referred to in this text is people from Belgium. The target concept referred to is eating fries. Since it is not a common stereotype in the United States that people from Belgium eat fries, this text does not use a stereotype as defined above. Therefore, the final answer is no.
GPT
Men can multitask.
The text makes a generalized claim about a social group (“men”) having a particular ability (“can multitask”). This invokes a common gender-based stereotype about men’s capabilities (often discussed in contrast with stereotypes about women and multitasking). yes
The social group is men and the target concept is multitasking. In the US, there is a stereotype that men cannot multitask well (and women can). This text goes against that stereotype and does not confirm a common stereotype. no.
Appendix
Table 10: Three examples showing the input statement and its decompositions, generated with English and Dutch prompts (translated into English for demonstration purposes), highlighting the observed differences between prompting languages. While the LLMs tend to overgeneralize and do not consider the cultural context with an English prompt, they often do so with a Dutch prompt.
Figure 4: An example prompt composition to detect stereotypes in the Dutch context (translated to English for demonstration purposes). The dashed separation lines and the headings of each part are added for clarity and are not part of the actual prompt.
Research on stereotypes in large language models (LLMs) has largely focused on English-speaking contexts, due to the lack of datasets in other languages and the high cost of manual annotation in underrepresented cultures. To address this gap, we introduce a cost-efficient human-LLM collaborative annotation framework and apply it to construct EspanStereo, a Spanish-language stereotype dataset spanning multiple Spanish-speaking countries across Europe and Latin America. EspanStereo captures both well-documented stereotypes from prior literature and culturally specific biases absent from English-centric resources. Using LLMs to generate candidate stereotypes and in-culture annotators to validate them, we demonstrate the framework's effectiveness in identifying nuanced, region-specific biases. Our evaluation of Spanish-supporting LLMs using EspanStereo reveals significant variation in stereotypical behavior across countries, highlighting the need for more culturally grounded assessments. Beyond Spanish, our framework is adaptable to other languages and regions, offering a scalable path toward multilingual stereotype benchmarks. This work broadens the scope of stereotype analysis in LLMs and lays the groundwork for comprehensive cross-cultural bias evaluation.
Weicheng Ma, John Guerrerio, Soroush Vosoughi
College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology · Computer Science Department, Dartmouth College
Generative large language models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit harmful biases and stereotypes. While safety fine-tuning typically takes place in English, if at all, these models are being used by speakers of many different languages. There is existing evidence that the performance of these models is inconsistent across languages and that they discriminate based on demographic factors of the user. Motivated by this, we investigate whether the social stereotypes exhibited by LLMs differ as a function of the language used to prompt them, while controlling for cultural differences and task accuracy. To this end, we present MBBQ (Multilingual Bias Benchmark for Question-answering), a carefully curated version of the English BBQ dataset extended to Dutch, Spanish, and Turkish, which measures stereotypes commonly held across these languages. We further complement MBBQ with a parallel control dataset to measure task performance on the question-answering task independently of bias. Our results based on several open-source and proprietary LLMs confirm that some non-English languages suffer from bias more than English, even when controlling for cultural shifts. Moreover, we observe significant cross-lingual differences in bias behaviour for all except the most accurate models. With the release of MBBQ, we hope to encourage further research on bias in multilingual settings. The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/Veranep/MBBQ.
Vera Neplenbroek, Arianna Bisazza, Raquel Fernández
Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam · Center for Language and Cognition, University of Groningen
Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly operate across culturally diverse settings, yet existing evaluations largely measure cultural behavior at the output level. We introduce CultureLens, a reference-grounded benchmark and mechanistic study of how LLMs use cultural information. CultureLens contains 9,261 scenarios across 75 countries and systematically varies country, value, true-norm, and contradictory-norm evidence. Across Llama-3.1-8B, Gemma-3-12B, and Qwen-3.5-27B, stating a contradictory norm lowers aligned answers by 32-47 percentage points, even when the model answers correctly from the country alone. Mechanistically, models default to Anglophone norms when no country is given. The failure under a contradictory norm is not one of missing knowledge, as blocking the norm inside the model restores the correct answer in most cases. Models accept a stated norm according to how it is presented and not whether it is true, which leaves them most exposed to errors in retrieved content. Supervised fine-tuning with contradictory-norm examples raises aligned answers under a contradictory norm to 85-93%, including on unseen countries, at a small cost under a true norm.