The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Which Humans?
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) have recently made vast advances in both generating and analyzing textual data. Technical reports often compare LLMs’ outputs with “human” performance on various tests. Here, we ask, “Which humans?” Much of the existing literature largely ignores the fact that humans are a cultural species with substantial psychological diversity around the globe that is not fully captured by the textual data on which current LLMs have been trained. We show that LLMs’ responses to psychological measures are an outlier compared with large-scale cross-cultural data, and that their performance on cognitive psychological tasks most resembles that of people from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies but declines rapidly as we move away from these populations (r = -.70). Ignoring cross-cultural diversity in both human and machine psychology raises numerous scientific and ethical issues. We close by discussing ways to mitigate the WEIRD bias in future generations of generative language models.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, WEIRD people make up only a fraction of the world's population, and the LLM's WEIRDness persists even in multilingual models.”
From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as Atari et al. [2]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The model's responses most resemble a cluster of WEIRD countries including the USA, Canada, Northern Ireland, New Zealand, Great Britain, Australia, Andorra, Germany, and the Netherlands.”
From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as Atari et al. [2]
In the citing paper
“Indeed, current language models reflect mostly WEIRD (Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic) populations and cannot easily be prompted to represent non-WEIRD communities (66, 67).”
From How should the advancement of large language models affect the practice of science? (2025) · cites this paper as [67]
In the citing paper
“Other work has found that GPT is biased toward responses on cognitive tasks that are similar to those of WEIRD populations (78).”
From GPT is an effective tool for multilingual psychological text analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [78]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The weirdest people in the world?
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0999152x · Cited by 12,641
Self-citationModernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies
Fukuyama, F., & Inglehart, R. (1997) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20048045 · Cited by 4,817
Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.291 · Cited by 4,263
Differences Between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation Study
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., Duan, L., Almaliach, A., Ang, S., Arnadottir, J., et al. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1197754 · Cited by 3,252
PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590
“Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., McElreath, R., Alvard, M., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., et al. (2005) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x05000142 · Cited by 1,898
Self-citationAwad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Rahwan, I. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6 · Cited by 1,859
Self-citationGlobal Evidence on Economic Preferences*
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2018) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjy013 · Cited by 1,724
Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4
Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Lee, Y. T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.12712 · Cited by 1,526
Large-Scale Psychological Differences Within China Explained by Rice Versus Wheat Agriculture
Talhelm, T., Zhang, X., Oishi, S., Shimin, C., Duan, D., Lan, X., & Kitayama, S. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1246850 · Cited by 1,374
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021, March). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? . In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM onference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 610-623).
- Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano J., M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin & B. Puranen et al. (2020). World Values Survey: Round Seven -Country-Pooled Datafile (Version 5.0) [Data set]. Madrid, Spain & Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.14281/18241. · DOI
- Heine, S. J. (2020). Cultural psychology (4th ed.).
- Jiang, L., Hwang, J. D., Bhagavatula, C., Le Bras, R., Liang, J., Dodge, J., Sakaguchi, K., Forbes, M., Borchardt, J., Gabriel, S., Tsvetkov, Y., Etzioni, O., Sap, M., Rini, R., Choi, Y. (2021). Can machines learn morality? The Delphi experiment. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.07574 · DOI · Paper page
- Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2012). Hofstede's fifth dimension: New evidence from the World Values Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 3-14.
- Zhang, L., Atari, M., Schwarz, N., Newman, E. J., & Afhami, R. (2022). Conceptual metaphors, processing fluency, and aesthetic preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 98, 104247.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cultural bias and cultural alignment of large language models
Tao, Y., Viberg, O., Baker, R. S., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae346 · Cited by 383
The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making
Capraro, V., Lentsch, A., Acemoglu, D., Akgun, S., Akhmedova, A., Bilancini, E., Bonnefon, J.-F., Brañas-Garza, P., Butera, L., Douglas, K. M., et al. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae191 · Cited by 371
GPT is an effective tool for multilingual psychological text analysis
Rathje, S., Mirea, D.-M., Sucholutsky, I., Marjieh, R., Robertson, C. E., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2308950121 · Cited by 297
Sarstedt, M., Adler, S. J., Rau, L., & Schmitt, B. (2024) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21982 · Cited by 149
How large language models can reshape collective intelligence
Burton, J. W., Lopez-Lopez, E., Hechtlinger, S., Rahwan, Z., Aeschbach, S., Bakker, M. A., Becker, J. A., Berditchevskaia, A., Berger, J., Brinkmann, L. U. L., et al. (2024) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-024-01959-9 · Cited by 150
Metadata
- Authors
- Atari, M., Xue, M. J., Park, P. S., Blasi, D. E., & Henrich, J.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Atari, Mohammad
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- Published
- 2023-09-22
- OpenAlex
- W4386981810
- Cited by
- 151
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 59 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- John Templeton Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- large language models, WEIRD bias, cross-cultural diversity, psychological diversity, generative language models, bias mitigation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
