A new large-scale study debunks the persistent myth that comforting a distressed loved one is an instinctive human desire, regardless of culture. It turns out that methods of emotional support are deeply linked to a society's cultural values. In countries with an individualistic orientation, the aim of help is seen in the quickest possible relief from pain and negative feelings.
In collectivist societies, things are different: sadness and suffering are perceived as a natural source of personal growth and reflection, and an attempt to quickly 'switch' a person can be seen as a misunderstanding of the depth of their experiences.
The study, published in 2026 in the journal “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” (PNAS), was conducted by Dr. Maya Tamir and doctoral candidate Shir GinoSsar Yaari from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The project involved over 6,900 people from 17 countries across different continents, including extensive surveys and diary entries from couples in Germany and South Korea. The researchers examined how people attempt to regulate the emotions of others—a phenomenon that has historically received much less attention in psychology than self-regulation.
The results were striking: culture influences the regulation of others' emotions much more strongly than the management of one's own feelings. Almost everyone wants to improve their mood when they feel bad. But the reaction to another's sadness or anger varies drastically depending on the cultural matrix in which a person was raised.
In individualistic cultures—the USA, Germany, the UK, and similar ones—caring for a distressed person most often manifests in active measures: listening attentively, expressing sympathy, suggesting ways to feel better. Here, negative emotions are perceived as an obstacle, a disruption to the normal course of life that needs to be urgently eliminated so that the person can return to productivity and personal well-being.
In collectivist societies—South Korea, Japan, India, China—the logic is entirely different. Sadness and suffering are viewed not as problems, but as significant parts of the human experience that contribute to self-discovery, strengthening social bonds, and inner development. An attempt to 'switch' a person out of a state of grief might be seen here not as kindness, but as obtuseness, as an ignore of an important human process.
This difference is particularly evident in the daily lives of couples. German partners are more motivated to reduce their partner's suffering, and this motivation is directly linked to the depth of their emotional intimacy. In South Korea, the situation is different: even in strong relationships, partners do not always rush to relieve each other of pain—this approach is considered more respectful, allowing each person to go through their own experience. It is these differences that explain why the same word of support or gesture can be heard very differently in different cultures: in one place as a display of love, in another—as an intrusion into a personal process.
The study's authors emphasize a critically important finding: the popular principle of 'if someone feels bad, you should help them feel better' is not a universal human trait, but a reflection of specific cultural beliefs. In our increasingly globalized world, where families are separated by continents, work teams bring together people from different countries, and psychotherapy crosses borders, a misunderstanding of these cultural nuances can become a source of genuine conflict and alienation.
The researchers propose a simple yet wise revision of approach: instead of asking, 'How can I comfort you?' ask, 'What is important to you right now? What do you expect from me?'—and learn to see that sometimes the best expression of compassion is to allow a person to remain in their state, with their pain, for as long as they need.
