In this review, we call for a cross‐cultural examination of mentalizing. To this end, we first outline theoretical directions for understanding mentalizing in the context of the universalism–relativism debate. Next, we systematically review cross‐cultural studies of five concepts, each of which overlaps with separate dimensions of mentalizing: Theory of Mind, empathy, perspective‐taking, alexithymia, and mindfulness. Based on healthy and clinical samples investigated across more than 45 cultures, we draw several conclusions. First, mentalizing profiles may vary between cultures (e.g., self > other mentalizing in individualistic cultures, self < other mentalizing in collectivistic cultures). Second, linguistic factors, value preferences, and parenting characteristics may explain these differences. Finally, the data generally support the link between mentalizing and mental health across cultures, yet further research is needed.

In this review, we call for a cross-cultural examination of mentalizing. To this end, we first outline theoretical directions for understanding mentalizing in the context of the universalism–relativism debate. Next, we systematically review cross-cultural studies of five concepts, each of which overlaps with separate dimensions of mentalizing: Theory of Mind, empathy, perspective-taking, alexithymia, and mindfulness. Based on healthy and clinical samples investigated across more than 45 cultures, we draw several conclusions. First, mentalizing profiles may vary between cultures (e.g., self > other mentalizing in individualistic cultures, self < other mentalizing in collectivistic cultures). Second, linguistic factors, value preferences, and parenting characteristics may explain these differences. Finally, the data generally support the link between mentalizing and mental health across cultures, yet further research is needed.

Objective Cross‐cultural comparisons that focus on underlying psychological mechanisms in disordered eating (DE) are lacking. With the aim of addressing this gap, we investigated the interplay between mentalizing, distress, and DE in two cultural groups: the ultra‐Orthodox and secular Jewish societies in Israel. Method A combination of performance‐based and self‐report measures of two mentalizing‐related constructs (emotional awareness and alexithymia), along with self‐report measures of distress, DE, and values preferences, were employed in a community sample (N = 300) of ultra‐Orthodox and secular Jewish women. Results Distress predicted DE in both cultural groups, yet there were cultural differences in the moderating role of mentalizing. Both mentalizing measures moderated the distress‒DE link in the secular group, but not in the ultra‐Orthodox group. Furthermore, there were cultural differences in the moderating effects of self versus other mentalizing. Conclusions The results suggest cultural differences in the underlying psychological mechanism of DE.

In this proof-of-concept paper, we aimed to conduct a preliminary investigation of a newly developed scale that focuses on what we have termed “mentalizing values”—that is, the extent to which thinking about internal mental states is valued across different cultures. To this end, we report the results of a cross-cultural comparison of mentalizing values, Schwartz’s value dimensions, and two overlapping concepts: externally oriented thinking (EOT) and emotional awareness (EA), in a sample of students from Japan, the UK, and Israel ( N = 360). The results indicate that the mentalizing values scale (MVS) has good internal consistency in different languages and seems to capture a similar unidimensional construct across the three cultures. In Israel, people ranked mentalizing values as very important for them relative to other values, whereas in Japan, mentalizing values were relatively less important to people. In the UK, the relative importance of mentalizing values was between that assigned by their counterparts from Israel and Japan. EOT and EA were predicted by mentalizing values and by conservation across cultures, with mentalizing values explaining cultural differences over and above conservation, and mentalizing values being the only significant predictor within each culture. Finally, a parallel mediation model indicated that cultural differences in EOT and EA could be explained by mentalizing values and conservation. Overall, these findings lend initial support for the utility of the MVS and suggest that cultural variations in mentalizing values can be heavily intertwined with concepts that emphasize people’s tendency or capacity to think about feelings, such as EOT and EA.

No abstract