{
  "id": 18114227,
  "title": "Massive study upends our understanding of the psychology of collectivism",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/11/04/massive-study-upends-our-understanding-of-the-psychology-of",
  "topic": "health",
  "section": "Health & Medicine",
  "published": "2026-11-04T11:00:06.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "PsyPost",
    "slug": "psypost",
    "url": "https://www.psypost.org/massive-study-upends-our-understanding-of-the-psychology-of-collectivism/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "A global study of over 12,000 individuals across 100 cultures challenges the conventional understanding of collectivism in psychology. The research, published in Nature Human Behaviour, identifies a new concept called \"responsibilism,\" which focuses on binding duties within close relationships rather than general friendliness toward everyone. This shift in definition reveals significant cultural differences between East Asian and Western societies, which previous scales may have overlooked.\n\nTraditionally, collectivism is viewed as a cultural orientation where individuals perceive themselves as interconnected with others, prioritizing social relationships and group obligations over personal desires. It contrasts with individualism, which emphasizes personal independence and autonomy. Despite this conceptual framework, surveys in the 1990s failed to accurately measure collectivism in various cultures, often contradicting expert expectations.\n\nThe new study led by Thomas Talhelm from Arizona State University suggests that the problem lies not with the survey methodology but with the way collectivism is defined. Classic questionnaires conflate \"warm fuzzy\" collectivism, which emphasizes positive emotions and broad cooperation, with \"responsibilism,\" which focuses on specific obligations and duties within close relationships. The researchers argue that the discrepancy in survey results occurs when items that measure warm feelings, such as \"To me, pleasure is spending time with others,\" are included in scales that are supposed to measure collectivism.\n\nTo investigate this further, the researchers surveyed 40 experts in cross-cultural psychology who had published work in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. These scholars were presented with 14 warm fuzzy statements and one duty-based statement from existing collectivism scales and asked to predict agreement levels in East Asian versus Western societies. Contrary to popular expectations, many scholars incorrectly predicted that East Asians would agree more with warm fuzzy statements, such as \"My relationships with others are more important than my own accomplishments.\" In reality, American participants tended to agree more with these items.\n\nConversely, scholars correctly identified that East Asians would be more likely to agree with duty-based statements, such as \"We should keep our aging parents with us at home.\" In response to these findings, the researchers developed a 14-item responsibilism scale, designed to measure specific obligations within close relationships rather than general friendliness. This approach aligns more closely with real-world behaviors, such as multigenerational living arrangements and blood donation patterns, that vary between cultures. The study highlights the importance of redefining collectivism to accurately capture its cultural nuances and implications in social sciences.",
  "summary": "Why did decades of surveys suggest Americans were just as collectivistic as people in China or Japan? A study of 12,000 people in 100 cultures points to a mix-up between warm feelings and binding duties.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}