Large language models often answer the same multiple-choice question inconsistently when it is posed under support-oriented and elimination-oriented framings. We investigate whether these discrepancies arise from different internal representations induced by the two framings. We introduce a dual-framing protocol with minimally varied prompts that use either support- or elimination-oriented framing while keeping the evaluation target fixed. To probe the internal computation, we append an untrained special token, [STATE], and treat its residual-stream activation as an intervention interface. Across both models, the two framings induce separable [STATE] activations concentrated in intermediate layers. Swapping these activations between paired prompts systematically changes predictions and improves cross-framing agreement, providing intervention-based evidence that the activations are behaviorally relevant. Beyond instance-level substitution, mean-difference steering directions derived from the dual-framing contrast exhibit more bounded layer-wise responses than matched contrastive activation addition directions under the evaluated protocol.

Introducing MARK, the Multi-stAge Reasoning frameworK for cultural value survey response simulation, designed to enhance the accuracy, steerability, and interpretability of large language models in this task. The system is inspired by the type dynamics theory in the MBTI psychological framework for personality research. It effectively predicts and utilizes human demographic information for simulation: life-situational stress analysis, group-level personality prediction, and self-weighted cognitive imitation. Experiments on the World Values Survey show that MARK outperforms existing baselines by 10% accuracy and reduces the divergence between model predictions and human preferences. This highlights the potential of our framework to improve zero-shot personalization and help social scientists interpret model predictions.