New study challenges traditional cultural ideas about collectivism

A new study led by Thomas Talhelm, from Arizona State University, challenges a long-standing assumption in cross-cultural research by offering a clearer way to measure “collectivism”.

For decades, researchers have used “collectivism” to explain how cultures differ in the value they place on family duty and group identity versus individual independence. But the most-used surveys produced puzzling results, often failing to detect expected differences between East Asian and Western societies. The new research suggests the issue was in how people think about collectivism.

Talhelm identifies a fundamental problem in older surveys: “collectivism” often combined two different ideas. One, “warm fuzzy” collectivism, describes general positive feelings towards others, reflected in survey statements like “to me, pleasure is spending time with others”. The other emphasises responsibility and duty in close relationships, such as the belief that families should care for ageing parents at home. In short, one captures broad sociability; the other captures obligations to family and close ties.

Redefining Duty With Responsibilism

To separate these ideas, Talhelm developed a new measure called “responsibilism”, focused on concrete duties in close relationships rather than general warmth towards people at large. He tested it with 12,247 people across 100 countries, representing about 90% of the world’s population.

The new scale revealed large and reliable cultural differences. Africa and South Asia scored highest, followed by East Asia, Southeast Asia and Central Asia, while North America, Europe and Australia scored lowest. The measure also showed little overlap with eight of the most-cited collectivism scales, suggesting it captures something distinct.

The scores also aligned with real-world behaviours, including rates of donating blood to family versus strangers, the percentage of people living alone, and expectations that people should lie for friends in court. Across these indicators, the new scale was a stronger predictor than older collectivism measures.

The findings matter because collectivism is central to research in psychology, sociology, economics, political science and history. By defining it more precisely, the study gives researchers a stronger tool for explaining cultural differences and connecting them to measurable social outcomes.

The research paper is published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.