REPORTS

protected sugar beet seedlings from infection by terial taxon. Next to the Pseudomonadaceae, 7. K. M. DeAngelis et al., ISME J. 3, 168 (2009).
R. solani (fig. S7). Random transposon mutagen- several other bacterial taxa were found in this 8. P. D. Schloss, J. Handelsman, PLOS Comput. Biol. 2,
e92 (2006).
esis generated two mutants of strain SH-C52 study to be associated with disease suppressive- 9. H. Feil et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 11064 (2005).
with no in vitro activity against R. solani. The ness (Fig. 3). Some of these taxa, including the 10. R. E. Ley et al., Science 320, 1647 (2008).
single transposon insertions were mapped to a Burkholderiaceae, Xanthomonadales, and Actino- 11. J. Qin et al., MetaHIT Consortium, Nature 464, 59 (2010).
nonribosomal peptide synthetase (NRPS) gene bacteria, harbor genera and species with activ- 12. J. J. Scott et al., Science 322, 63 (2008).
13. J. Postma, R. W. A. Scheper, M. T. Schilder, Soil Biol.
with 69% sequence identity to syrE, the gene ity against plant pathogenic fungi, including Biochem. 42, 804 (2010).
of the syringomycin-syringopeptin (syr-syp) bio- R. solani (13). These findings suggest that the 14. P. Garbeva, M. W. Silby, J. M. Raaijmakers, S. B. Levy,
synthetic pathway in Pseudomonas syringae complex phenomenon of disease suppressive- W. D. Boer, ISME J. (2011).
pv. syringae (9). NRPS-mutant O33 colonized ness of soils cannot simply be ascribed to a single Acknowledgments: We thank T. Bisseling for critical
reading and valuable suggestions. We acknowledge
the rhizosphere to the same extent as its parental bacterial taxon or group, but is most likely gov- assistance by L. Sibbel-Wagemakers, N. Pangesti,
strain SH-C52, but did not protect sugar beet erned by microbial consortia. The observation M. de Milliano, N. Sharma, R. de Vries, P.M.S. van Oorschot,
seedlings from fungal infection (fig. S7). Subse- that bacterial strains, which lack activity against A. H. L. Schoone, and Y. Bakker. This work was financially
quent genetic analyses revealed that the putative pathogens when tested alone, can act synergis- supported by grants from Netherlands Science Organisation
(NWO)–ERGO (#838.06.101) and Netherlands Genomics
biosynthetic pathway consisted of two gene clus- tically when part of microbial consortia (14) fur- Initiative–Ecogenomics, Netherlands. Additional work was
ters, designated thaAB and thaC1C2D, which were ther exemplifies the complexity of adopting performed at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)
predicted to encode a nine–amino acid chlorinated Koch’s postulates for identification of micro- (contract DE-AC02-05CH11231 with the U.S. Department of
lipopeptide (fig. S8). organisms involved in disease suppressiveness Energy). The 16S rDNA sequences are available on
GenBank under accessions HQ848634 to HQ848643,
The multifaceted approach adopted in this of soils. The bacteria and biosynthetic pathway
and the thaABCD sequences under accession HQ888764.
study, linking culture-independent and culture- identified here provide a set of microbial and LBNL has a patent on the PhyloChip assay and Second
dependent analyses, shows that plants, like mam- genetic markers to elucidate whether and how Genome has licensed this assay from LBNL. Although the

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on October 6, 2019

mals and insects (10–12), can rely on specific plants recruit beneficial soil microorganisms for G3 PhyloChip is under patent (and under exclusive
constituents of the microbial community for pro- protection against infections. license to Second Genome), the data generated from
the use of the chip are not patented or restricted.
tection against pathogen infections. We showed T.Z.dS. owns stock in Second Genome valued at
that the g-Proteobacteria, and specifically mem- under $10,000.
bers of the Pseudomonadaceae, protect plants References and Notes
1. H. Marschner, Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants
from fungal infection through the production of (Academic Press, London, ed. 2, 1995).
Supporting Online Material
a putative chlorinated lipopeptide encoded by www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/science.1203980/DC1
2. T. Bisseling, J. L. Dangl, P. Schulze-Lefert, Science 324,
Materials and Methods
NRPS genes. Functional analysis further revealed 691 (2009).
Figs. S1 to S8
a significant difference in plant disease suppres- 3. R. J. Cook et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 92, 4197 (1995).
Tables S1 to S5
4. D. Haas, G. Défago, Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 3, 307 (2005).
sion between haplotypes SH-A and SH-C (fig. S7), 5. D. M. Weller, J. M. Raaijmakers, B. B. M. Gardener, 8 February 2011; accepted 20 April 2011
suggesting that in situ antifungal activity is L. S. Thomashow, Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 40, 309 (2002). Published online 5 May 2011;
governed by individual members of this bac- 6. T. C. Hazen et al., Science 330, 204 (2010). 10.1126/science.1203980

in the past few decades have scientists begun

Differences Between Tight and Loose to move beyond descriptive accounts of cultural
differences to empirically assess ways in which
Cultures: A 33-Nation Study national cultures vary. We examine a neglected
source of cultural variation that is dominating
the geo-political landscape and has the potential
Michele J. Gelfand,1* Jana L. Raver,2 Lisa Nishii,3 Lisa M. Leslie,4 Janetta Lun,1 Beng Chong Lim,5 to be a major source of cultural conflict: the differ-
Lili Duan,6 Assaf Almaliach,7 Soon Ang,8 Jakobina Arnadottir,9 Zeynep Aycan,10 Klaus Boehnke,11 ence between nations that are “tight”—have strong
Pawel Boski,12 Rosa Cabecinhas,13 Darius Chan,14 Jagdeep Chhokar,15 Alessia D’Amato,16 norms and a low tolerance of deviant behavior—
Montse Ferrer,17 Iris C. Fischlmayr,18 Ronald Fischer,19 Marta Fülöp,20 James Georgas,21 and those that are “loose”—have weak norms and
Emiko S. Kashima,22 Yoshishima Kashima,23 Kibum Kim,24 Alain Lempereur,25 Patricia Marquez,26 a high tolerance of deviant behavior.
Rozhan Othman,27 Bert Overlaet,28 Penny Panagiotopoulou,29 Karl Peltzer,30 Early anthropological research showed the
Lorena R. Perez-Florizno,31 Larisa Ponomarenko,32 Anu Realo,33 Vidar Schei,34 Manfred Schmitt,35 promise of this distinction. In his study of 21 tra-
Peter B. Smith,36 Nazar Soomro,37 Erna Szabo,18 Nalinee Taveesin,38 Midori Toyama,39 ditional societies, Pelto (2) documented wide var-
Evert Van de Vliert,40 Naharika Vohra,41 Colleen Ward,42 Susumu Yamaguchi43 iation in the expression of and adherence to social
norms. The Hutterites, Hanno, and Lubara were
With data from 33 nations, we illustrate the differences between cultures that are tight among the tightest societies, with very strong
(have many strong norms and a low tolerance of deviant behavior) versus loose (have weak norms and severe sanctions for norm violation,
social norms and a high tolerance of deviant behavior). Tightness-looseness is part of a complex, whereas the Kung Bushman, Cubeo, and the Skolt
loosely integrated multilevel system that comprises distal ecological and historical threats Lapps were among the loosest societies, with am-
(e.g., high population density, resource scarcity, a history of territorial conflict, and disease and biguous norms and greater permissiveness for norm
environmental threats), broad versus narrow socialization in societal institutions (e.g., autocracy, violation. Pelto speculated that these societies may
media regulations), the strength of everyday recurring situations, and micro-level psychological have different ecologies, with tight societies having
affordances (e.g., prevention self-guides, high regulatory strength, need for structure). This a higher population per square mile and a higher
research advances knowledge that can foster cross-cultural understanding in a world of increasing dependence on crops as compared to loose socie-
global interdependence and has implications for modeling cultural change. ties. Later research indeed showed that agricultural
societies (e.g., the Temne of Sierra Leone), which
ow “other” cultures differ from one’s long ago as 400 B.C.E., Herodotus documented require strong norms to foster the coordination

H own has piqued the curiosity of scholars

and laypeople across the centuries. As
a wide variety of cultural practices that he ob-
served in his travels in The Histories (1). Only
necessary to grow crops for survival, had strict
child-rearing practices and children who were high

1100 27 MAY 2011 VOL 332 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

 REPORTS
on conformity. Hunting and fishing societies (e.g., have a much lower need for order and social anthropologists (11–14) but has yet to be linked
the Inuit) had lenient child-rearing practices and coordination, affording weaker social norms and to cultural variation. Tight nations are expected
children who were low on conformity (3, 4). much more latitude (8). to have a much higher degree of situational con-
Despite evidence of the importance of this The strength of social norms and tolerance of straint which restricts the range of behavior deemed
contrast in traditional societies, there exists no deviant behavior is also afforded by and reflected appropriate across everyday situations (e.g., class-
insight into how tightness-looseness operates in in prevailing institutions and practices. Institu- rooms, libraries, public parks, etc.). By contrast,
modern nations. The goal of this research is to tions in tight nations have narrow socialization loose nations are expected to have a much weaker
fill this void. Drawing on theorizing in cultural that restricts the range of permissible behavior, situational structure, affording a much wider range
psychology (5, 6 ), we propose that tightness- whereas institutions in loose nations encourage of permissible behavior across everyday situa-
looseness is part of a complex, loosely integrated broad socialization that affords a wide range of tions. The strength (or weakness) of everyday re-
system that involves processes across multiple permissible behavior (9). Relative to loose na- curring situations within nations simultaneously
levels of analysis (Fig. 1). We theorize that the tions, tight nations are more likely to have auto- reflects and supports the degree of order and so-
strength of social norms and tolerance of deviant cratic governing systems that suppress dissent, to cial coordination in the larger cultural context.
behavior—the core distinction between tight and have media institutions (broadcast, paper, Inter- We further theorize that there is a close con-
loose cultures—is afforded by numerous distal net) with restricted content and more laws and nection between the strength (versus weakness)
ecological and human-made societal threats and controls, and to have criminal justice systems of everyday situations and the chronic psycho-
societal institutions and practices. The strength with higher monitoring, more severe punishment logical processes of individuals within nations.
of social norms and tolerance of deviant behav- (e.g., the death penalty), and greater deterrence In this view, individuals’ psychological processes
ior is further reflected and promoted in the pre- and control of crime. Tight nations will also be become naturally attuned to, and supportive of,
dominance of strong versus weak situations that more religious, thereby reinforcing adherence to the situational demands in the cultural system
are recurrent in everyday local worlds, and is re- moral conventions and rules that can facilitate (15). Individuals who are chronically exposed to

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on October 6, 2019

inforced through psychological processes that are social order and coordination (10). Challenges to stronger (versus weaker) situations in their every-
attuned to situational requirements. We provide an societal institutions (e.g., demonstrations, boy- day local worlds have the continued subjective
empirical test that shows how ecological, histor- cotts, strikes) will be much less common in tight experience that their behavioral options are lim-
ical, and institutional factors, along with everyday nations than in loose ones. These institutions and ited, their actions are subject to evaluation, and
situations and psychological processes, together practices simultaneously reflect and support the there are potential punishments based on these
constitute cultural systems. strength of norms and tolerance of deviance that evaluations. Accordingly, individuals in nations
We predict that tightness-looseness is afforded exists in nations. with high situational constraint will have self-
by a broad array of ecological and human-made Tightness-looseness is manifested not only in guides that are more prevention-focused (16) and
societal threats (or lack thereof) that nations have distal ecological, historical, and institutional con- thus will be more cautious (concerned with avoid-
historically encountered (4, 7). Ecological and texts but also in everyday situations in local ing mistakes) and dutiful (focused on behaving
human-made threats increase the need for strong worlds (e.g., at home, in restaurants, classrooms, properly), and will have higher self-regulatory
norms and punishment of deviant behavior in public parks, libraries, the workplace) that indi- strength (higher impulse control) (17), a higher
the service of social coordination for survival— viduals inhabit (5, 6). We theorize that tightness- need for structure (18), and higher self-monitoring
whether it is to reduce chaos in nations that have looseness is reflected in the predominance of ability (19, 20). Put simply, the higher (or lower)
high population density, deal with resource scar- strong versus weak everyday situations (11, 12). degree of social regulation that exists at the
city, coordinate in the face of natural disasters, Strong situations have a more restricted range of societal level is mirrored in the higher (or lower)
defend against territorial threats, or contain the appropriate behavior, have high censuring poten- amount of self-regulation at the individual level
spread of disease. Nations facing these particular tial, and leave little room for individual discre- in tight and loose nations, respectively. Such
challenges are predicted to develop strong norms tion. Weak situations place few external constraints psychological processes simultaneously reflect
and have low tolerance of deviant behavior to on individuals, afford a wide range of behavioral and support the strength of social norms and tol-
enhance order and social coordination to effec- options, and leave much room for individual dis- erance of deviance in the larger cultural context.
tively deal with such threats. Nations with few cretion. Situational strength has been long dis- To provide a systematic analysis of tightness-
ecological and human-made threats, by contrast, cussed among psychologists, sociologists, and looseness in modern societies, we gathered data

1
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Valencia, Spain. 18Johannes Kepler University, Institute for versity, Dvorianskaya str. 2, Odessa 67027, Ukraine. 33De-
Park, MD 20742, USA. 2Queen’s School of Business, Kingston, International Management, Altenbergerstrasse 69, 4040 partment of Psychology, University of Tartu, Tiigi 78, Tartu
Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada. 3Cornell University Industrial Labor Linz, Austria. 19School of Psychology, Centre for Applied 50410, Estonia. 34Department of Strategy and Manage-
Relations School, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. 4Carlson School of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, ment, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Admin-
Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand. 20Institute for Psy- istration, Breiviksveien 40, 5045 Bergen, Norway. 35Universität
USA. 5Ministry of Defense, Singapore and Nanyang Business chology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Victor Hugo Street Koblenz-Landau, Fortstraße 7, D-76829 Landau, Germany.
School, Defense Technology Towers, 5 Depot Road, #16-01 18-22, Budapest 1132, Hungary. 21University of Athens, 11 36
Department of Psychology, University of Sussex, Falmer,
Tower B, Singapore. 6McKinsey & Company, Washington, DC Herodou Attikou, Athens 106 74, Greece. 22School of Psy- Brighton BN1 9QH, UK. 37Department of Psychological Test-
20036, USA. 7BIP Institute of Psychology Ltd., Vita Towers, 11 chological Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria ing, Guidance and Research, University of Sindh, Elsa Kazi
Ben-Gurion Street, Bney-Brak 51260, Israel. 8Nanyang Tech- 3086, Australia. 23Psychological Sciences University of Mel- Campus, Hyderabad 71000, Pakistan. 3833 Soonvijai 4,
nological University, Nanyang Avenue 639798, Singapore. bourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. 24School of Social Sciences, Bangkok 10310, Thailand. 39Department of Psychology
9
Kaplaskjolsvegur 29, IS-107 Reykjavik, Iceland. 10Depart- Sungkyunkwan University, Myungryun-dong 3 ga, Jongno-gu, Gakushuin University, 1-5-1 Mejiro, Toshima-ku, Tokyo 171-
ment of Psychology, Koc University, Sariyer 34450, Turkey. Seoul 110-745, Korea. 25ESSEC Business School, Av. Bernard 8588, Japan. 40University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1,
11
Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences, Hirsch, B.P. 50105, 95021 Cergy Pontoise Cedex, France. 9712 TS Groningen, Netherlands. 41Indian Institute of Manage-
Jacobs University Bremen, D-28759 Bremen, Germany. 12War- 26
University of San Diego, 235 Olin Hall, 5998 Alcala Park, San ment, Wing 12, IIM Campus, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
saw School of Social Sciences and Humanities, 03-815 Warsaw, Diego, CA 92131, USA. 2721 Jalan 5C/6, 43650 B B Bangi, 380015, India. 42School of Psychology, P.O. Box 600, Victoria
Poland. 13University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Selangor, Malaysia. 28KU Leuven, Naamsestraat 67, B-3000 University of Wellington, Wellington 6140, New Zealand.
Braga, Portugal. 14Department of Psychology, Chinese Uni- Leuven, Belgium. 29University of Patras, 26500 Rio, Patras, 43
Department of Social Psychology, Graduate School of Hu-
versity of Hong Kong, 3rd Floor, Sino Building, Shatin, N.T., Greece. 30Human Sciences Research Council, Private Bag X41, manities and Sociology, University of Tokyo, Hongo 7-3-1,
Hong Kong. 15Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad- Pretoria 0001, South Africa. 31Investigadora Colegio de la Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.
380015, India. 16CENTRUM Catolica, Pontificia Universidad Fontera Norte, Km 18.5 carretera escénica Tijuana - Ensenada,
Catolica del Peru, Lima 33, Peru. 17Social Psychology Depart- San Antonio del Mar, Tijuana, Baja California C.P. 22560, *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
ment, University of Valencia, Avenida Blasco Ibáñez, 21, 46010 México. 32Psychology Department, Odessa National Uni- mgelfand@psyc.umd.edu

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 332 27 MAY 2011 1101

 REPORTS
from 6823 respondents across 33 nations (20). established measure (20). Participants rated the were assessed with well-validated measures (20).
Sample characteristics are shown in Table 1 (21). appropriateness of 12 behaviors (i.e., argue, eat, Procrustes factor analysis of all of the measures
In each nation, we surveyed individuals from a laugh, curse/swear, kiss, cry, sing, talk, flirt, listen across the 33 nations all evidenced high equiv-
wide range of occupations as well as university to music, read newspaper, bargain) across 15 sit- alence and high degrees of cross-national varia-
students. Data on ecological and historical threats uations (i.e., bank, doctor’s office, job interview, tion (20).
and societal institutions were collected from nu- library, funeral, classroom, restaurant, public park, To test our predictions, we first examine the
merous established databases (20). When possi- bus, bedroom, city sidewalk, party, elevator, work- relationships between tightness-looseness and
ble, historical data were included (e.g., population place, movies), resulting in a total of 180 behavior- ecological and historical institutions. Because
density in 1500, history of conflict 1918–2001, situation ratings (20). For a given situation, the many of these variables are associated with na-
historical prevalence of pathogens). mean appropriateness ratings across behaviors tional wealth, we controlled for nations’ GNP
Tightness-looseness (the overall strength of indicate the degree of situational constraint: Low per capita to examine their unique relationships
social norms and tolerance of deviance) was mea- values indicate that there are few behaviors con- with tightness-looseness. We next illustrate how
sured on a six-item Likert scale that assessed the sidered appropriate in that situation, whereas tightness-looseness is related to the strength of
degree to which social norms are pervasive, clear- high values indicate that a wide range of behav- everyday situations and examine the cross-level
ly defined, and reliably imposed within nations. iors are considered appropriate in that situation. relationship between the strength of situations
Example scale items include “There are many Country-level scores of situational constraint were and numerous psychological processes with the
social norms that people are supposed to abide by derived by averaging scores across situations. use of hierarchical linear modeling. We provide a
in this country,” “In this country, if someone acts Analyses illustrate that the situational constraint test of the overall model with multilevel struc-
in an inappropriate way, others will strongly dis- measure is a shared collective construct within tural equation analysis (20).
approve,” and “People in this country almost nations (20): There is high within-nation agree- Table S3 illustrates that nations that have
always comply with social norms.” The results ment about the level of constraint in everyday encountered ecological and historical threats have

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on October 6, 2019

show strong support for the reliability and valid- situations in each nation [rwithin-group(M) = 0.99], much stronger norms and lower tolerance of de-
ity of the measure (20). Ecological factor analyses high between-nation variability in situational con- viant behavior. Tight nations have higher popula-
and Procrustes factor analysis in all 33 nations straint [F(32, 6790) = 92.9, P < 0.0001; ICC(1) = tion density in the year 1500 (r = 0.77, P = 0.01),
illustrate that the scale exhibits factor validity 0.31], and high reliability of the situational con- in the year 2000 in the nation (r = 0.31, P = 0.10),
and measurement equivalence. Analyses show straint means [ICC(2) = 0.99]. There is strong con- and in the year 2000 in rural areas (r = 0.59; P =
that the strength of social norms and tolerance of struct validity of the measure (20). Respondents 0.02), and also have a higher projected popula-
deviance is a shared collective construct: There in each nation also provided direct ratings regard- tion increase (r = 0.40, P = 0.03). Tight nations
is high within-nation agreement in each nation ing whether the 15 situations had clear rules for have a dearth of natural resources, including a
[rwithin-group(M) = 0.85], high between-nation appropriate behavior, called for certain behaviors lower percentage of farmland (r = –0.37, P =
variability [F(32, 6,774) = 31.23, P < 0.0001; and not others, required people to monitor their 0.05), higher food deprivation (r = 0.52, P < 0.01),
intraclass correlation (ICC)(1) = 0.13], and high behavior or “watch what they do,” and allowed in- lower food supply and production (r = –0.36, P =
reliability of the tightness-looseness scale means dividuals to choose their behavior (reverse-coded), 0.05, and –0.40, P = 0.03, respectively), lower
[ICC(2) = 0.97]. The scale has high convergent the average of which is highly correlated with the protein and fat supply (rs = –0.41 and –0.46, Ps =
validity with expert ratings, unobtrusive measures, behavior-situation ratings (r = 0.74, P < 0.001). 0.03 and 0.01), less access to safe water (r = –0.50,
and survey data from representative samples; is The correlation of the current situational constraint P = 0.01), and lower air quality (r = –0.44, P =
able to adequately discriminate between cultural data in the United States with those reported by 0.02), relative to loose nations. Tight nations face
regions; and is distinct from other cultural dimen- Price and Bouffard is 0.92 (P < 0.001) (20), more disasters such as floods, tropical cyclones,
sions (20) (tables S1 and S2). which suggests that the degree of constraint across and droughts (r = 0.47, P = 0.01) and have had
The degree of constraint across a wide range situations is generally stable across time. more territorial threats from their neighbors during
of everyday social situations was measured Psychological processes (prevention focus, self- the period 1918–2001 (r = 0.41, P = 0.04). His-
through adaptations to Price and Bouffard’s regulation strength, need for order, self-monitoring) torical prevalence of pathogens was higher in tight

Fig. 1. A systems model of tightness-looseness.

1102 27 MAY 2011 VOL 332 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

 REPORTS
nations (r = 0.36, P = 0.05), as were the number burglary rates (rs = –0.45 and –0.47, Ps < 0.01) such everyday situations in loose nations (20). Hi-
of years of life lost to communicable diseases (r = and overall volume of crime (r = –0.37, P = 0.04). erarchical linear modeling intercept-as-outcomes
0.59, P < 0.01), the prevalence of tuberculosis (r = Tight nations are more religious, with more people models showed that higher levels of situational
0.61, P < 0.01), and infant and child mortality attending religious services per week (r = 0.54, constraint are significantly related to greater pre-
rates (rs = 0.42, P = 0.02, and 0.46, P = 0.01). P < 0.01) and believing in the importance of god vention self-guides [higher cautiousness: g01 =
Tightness-looseness is reflected in societal in life (r = 0.37, P < 0.05) (20). The percentage of 1.48, t(31) = 7.54, P < 0.01; higher dutifulness:
institutions and practices (table S3). Tight nations people participating in collective actions (e.g., sign- g01 = 1.11, t(31) = 5.05, P < 0.01], greater self-
are more likely to have autocratic rule that ing petitions, attending demonstrations) is much regulation strength [higher impulse control: g01 =
suppresses dissent (r = 0.47, P = 0.01), less open lower in tight nations (r = –0.40, P = 0.03), and 1.18, t(31) = 6.60, P < 0.01], higher needs for
media overall (r = –0.53, P < 0.01), more laws more people report that they would never engage structure [g01 = 2.67, t(31) = 5.76, P < 0.01], and
and regulations and political pressures and in such actions (r = 0.36, P = 0.05) in comparison higher self-monitoring [g01 = 0.94, t(31) = 3.69,
controls for media (rs = 0.37 to 0.62, Ps ≤ to loose nations. P < 0.01] (23). This suggests that societal mem-
0.05), and less access to and use of new com- Tightness-looseness is also related to the bers’ psychological characteristics are attuned to
munication technologies (r = –0.38, P = 0.04). strength of everyday recurring situations within and supportive of the degree of constraint versus
Tight nations also have fewer political rights and nations. As predicted, there is much higher situa- latitude in the larger cultural context. Multilevel
civil liberties (rs = –0.50 and –0.45, Ps ≤ 0.01). tional constraint in tight versus loose nations (r = structural equation analyses that simultaneously
Criminal justice institutions in tight nations are 0.55, P < 0.01) (22). In other words, there is much tested the proposed relations in Fig. 1 illustrated
better able to maintain social control: There are higher constraint across everyday situations— very good fit to the data (20).
more police per capita (r = 0.31, P = 0.12), stricter including the bank, public park, library, restaurant, In all, the data illustrate that tightness-
punishments (i.e., retention of the death penalty) bus, workplace, party, classroom, and the like— looseness, a critical aspect of modern societies
(r = 0.60, P < 0.01), and lower murder rates and in tight nations, and much lower constraint across that has been heretofore unexplored, is a part of a

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on October 6, 2019

Table 1. Sample characteristics of the 33 nations.
Language Number of Mean age Percentage Percentage Tightness
Nation Data collection site(s)
of survey participants (TSD) female students score
Australia Melbourne English 230 25.4 T 10.0 69.1 63.9 4.4
Austria Linz German 194 31.6 T 11.8 51.5 41.8 6.8
Belgium Leuven (Flanders region) Dutch 138 33.3 T 14.3 73.2 50.7 5.6
Brazil São Paulo Portuguese 196 27.5 T 9.4 72.3 40.3 3.5
Estonia Tartu Estonian 188 32.0 T 16.8 86.6 52.1 2.6
France Paris, Cergy English 111 25.2 T 4.1 37.8 67.6 6.3
Germany (former East) Chemnitz German 201 31.6 T 12.2 66.7 49.3 7.5
Germany (former West) Rhineland-Palatine/Frankfurt German 312 32.5 T 14.5 63.8 51.6 6.5
Greece Athens Greek 275 30.9 T 11.3 56.7 45.1 3.9
Hong Kong Hong Kong Chinese 197 27.3 T 11.7 68.0 53.8 6.3
Hungary Budapest, Szeged Hungarian 256 30.8 T 10.9 42.2 48.0 2.9
Iceland Reykjavík Icelandic 144 36.3 T 13.3 67.4 41.7 6.4
India Ahmedabad, Bhubneswar, Hindi 222 27.8 T 9.6 54.1 52.3 11.0
Chandigarh, Coimbatore
Israel Tel-Aviv, Ramat-Gan, Hebrew 194 30.2 T 10.7 60.3 48.5 3.1
Jerusalem, Petach-Tikva
Italy Padova Italian 217 29.6 T 10.3 40.1 53.0 6.8
Japan Tokyo, Osaka Japanese 246 33.2 T 14.9 55.7 48.8 8.6
Malaysia Bandar Baru Bangi Malay 202 29.5 T 9.1 49.5 45.0 11.8
Mexico Mexico City Spanish 221 27.7 T 11.6 42.1 40.3 7.2
Netherlands Groningen Dutch 207 29.8 T 11.9 55.6 53.1 3.3
New Zealand Wellington English 208 29.9 T 13.0 64.4 61.1 3.9
Norway Bergen Norwegian 252 31.8 T 11.0 56.7 46.0 9.5
Pakistan Hyderabad Urdu 190 30.0 T 9.8 51.1 52.6 12.3
People’s Republic of China Beijing Chinese 235 29.4 T 11.5 45.9 53.2 7.9
Poland Warsaw Polish 210 28.5 T 12.4 65.2 51.9 6.0
Portugal Braga Portuguese 207 28.5 T 11.6 54.6 58.0 7.8
Singapore Singapore English 212 26.1 T 6.7 59.0 49.1 10.4
South Korea Seoul Korean 196 26.2 T 7.5 61.2 73.5 10.0
Spain Valencia Spanish 172 30.2 T 9.6 66.9 40.1 5.4
Turkey Istanbul Turkish 195 32.0 T 14.4 53.3 45.6 9.2
Ukraine Odessa Ukrainian 184 30.8 T 12.7 56.5 44.6 1.6
United Kingdom Brighton English 185 29.9 T 11.5 67.0 51.4 6.9
United States Washington, DC; English 199 31.4 T 13.7 60.3 48.2 5.1
Maryland; Virginia
Venezuela Caracas Spanish 227 35.8 T 10.0 60.4 1.3 3.7
Totals/means 6823 30.1 T 11.3 58.6 49.2 6.5

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 332 27 MAY 2011 1103

 REPORTS
system of interrelated distal and proximal factors to recognize that tight and loose cultures may be, 16. E. T. Higgins, Psychol. Rev. 94, 319 (1987).
across multiple levels of analysis. In addition to at least in part, functional in their own ecolog- 17. R. F. Baumeister, T. F. Heatherton, Psychol. Inq. 7,
1 (1996).
explicating how tight and loose cultures vary in ical and historical contexts. Understanding tight 18. S. L. Neuberg, J. T. Newsom, Personal. Processes Indiv.
modern societies, this research has implications and loose cultures is critical for fostering cross- Diff. 65, 113 (1993).
for understanding and modeling how tight and cultural coordination in a world of increasing global 19. M. Snyder, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 30, 526
loose cultures are maintained and changed. Sub- interdependence. (1974).
20. See supporting material on Science Online.
stantial top-down or bottom-up changes in any of 21. Most samples corresponded to nations; however, where
the levels in the model may trigger a rippling subnational boundaries could be identified on the basis
References and Notes
effect to other levels, resulting in changes in tight 1. Herodotus, The Histories (Oxford, New York, 1998; of historical circumstances, they were treated as separate
or loose cultures. R. Waterfield, Transl.). samples (e.g., East and West Germany; Hong Kong and
People’s Republic of China).
As culture is fundamentally a system, causal 2. P. J. Pelto, Trans Action 5, 37 (1968).
22. For ease of interpretation, the situational constraint score
inferences regarding the direction of the relation- 3. H. Barry III, I. L. Child, M. K. Bacon, Am. Anthropol. 62,
51 (1959). was reversed such that high values are indicative of
ships need further examination, particularly giv- 4. J. W. Berry, Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 12, 177 (1979). higher constraint.
en that they are likely reciprocal. Future research 5. S. Kitayama, Psychol. Bull. 128, 89 (2002). 23. We also ran these analyses with a split-sample approach
(25) to eliminate single-source bias as an alternative
should also apply the basic principles of the 6. A. Fiske, S. Kitayama, H. R. Markus, R. Nisbett,
in The Handbook of Social Psychology, D. Gilbert, explanation for our findings. Within each country we
current work to explore variation in tightness- randomly assigned participants to one of two groups:
S. T. Fiske, G. Lindzey, Eds. (Oxford, New York, 1998),
looseness at other levels of analysis (e.g., regions). vol. 2, pp. 915–981. One group provided the situational constraint scores and
We also note that the samples in this study are 7. H. C. Triandis, The Analysis of Subjective Culture the other group provided the individual-difference scales.
not representative of each nation. However, the (Wiley, New York, 1972). These hierarchical linear modeling results were the same
8. We acknowledge that these relationships are only as with the full sample.
diverse backgrounds of the participants, high agree- 24. D. Cohen, Psychol. Bull. 127, 451 (2001).
probabilistic, as cultures can find equifinal solutions to
ment among different subgroups, and correlations 25. C. Ostroff, A. J. Kinicki, M. A. Clark, J. Appl. Psychol. 87,
ecological and historical threats (24). Moreover, the

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on October 6, 2019

with other measures drawn from representative degree of tightness-looseness in societies can further 355 (2002).
samples lend confidence to the generalizability of reinforce the ecological context (6), making these Acknowledgments: Supported by NSF grant 9910760
relationships potentially reciprocal. and U.S. Army Research Lab and Research Office
the results (20). grant W911NF-08-1-0144 (M.J.G.), Turkish
This research illuminates the multitude of dif- 9. J. J. Arnett, J. Marriage Fam. 57, 617 (1995).
10. A. Norenzayan, A. F. Shariff, Science 322, 58 Academy of Sciences (Z.A.), Polish Academy of
ferences that exist across tight and loose cultures. (2008). Sciences (P.B.), Australian Research Council (Y.K.),
From either system’s vantage point, the “other 11. W. Mischel, in Personality at the Crossroads, and Estonian Ministry of Science (A.R.). We thank
C. B. Bruss and R. Mohr for their help in preparing
system” could appear to be dysfunctional, unjust, E. Magnusson, N. S. Endler, Eds. (Erlbaum, Hillsdale,
this manuscript.
and fundamentally immoral, and such divergent NJ, 1977).
12. R. H. Price, D. L. Bouffard, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 30,
beliefs could become the collective fuel for cul- 579 (1974). Supporting Online Material
tural conflicts. Indeed, as Herodotus (1) remarked 13. E. D. Boldt, Can. J. Sociol. 3, 349 (1978). www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/332/6033/1100/DC1
centuries ago, “if one were to order all mankind 14. E. Goffman, Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Materials and Methods
to choose the best set of rules in the world, each Social Organization of Gatherings (Greenwood, Westport, Tables S1 to S6
CT, 1963). References
group would, after due consideration, choose its 15. S. Kitayama, H. R. Markus, H. Matsumoto,
own customs; each group regards its own as V. Norasakkunkit, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 72, 1245 14 September 2010; accepted 6 April 2011
being the best by far” ( p. 185). Such beliefs fail (1997). 10.1126/science.1197754

1104 27 MAY 2011 VOL 332 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

Differences Between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation Study
Michele J. Gelfand, Jana L. Raver, Lisa Nishii, Lisa M. Leslie, Janetta Lun, Beng Chong Lim, Lili Duan, Assaf Almaliach, Soon
Ang, Jakobina Arnadottir, Zeynep Aycan, Klaus Boehnke, Pawel Boski, Rosa Cabecinhas, Darius Chan, Jagdeep Chhokar,
Alessia D'Amato, Montse Ferrer, Iris C. Fischlmayr, Ronald Fischer, Marta Fülöp, James Georgas, Emiko S. Kashima,
Yoshishima Kashima, Kibum Kim, Alain Lempereur, Patricia Marquez, Rozhan Othman, Bert Overlaet, Penny
Panagiotopoulou, Karl Peltzer, Lorena R. Perez-Florizno, Larisa Ponomarenko, Anu Realo, Vidar Schei, Manfred Schmitt,
Peter B. Smith, Nazar Soomro, Erna Szabo, Nalinee Taveesin, Midori Toyama, Evert Van de Vliert, Naharika Vohra, Colleen
Ward and Susumu Yamaguchi

Science 332 (6033), 1100-1104.

DOI: 10.1126/science.1197754

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on October 6, 2019

ARTICLE TOOLS http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6033/1100

SUPPLEMENTARY http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2011/05/26/332.6033.1100.DC2
MATERIALS
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2011/05/26/332.6033.1100.DC1

RELATED http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/333/6045/937.3.full
CONTENT

REFERENCES This article cites 14 articles, 1 of which you can access for free
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6033/1100#BIBL

PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions

Use of this article is subject to the Terms of Service

Science (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. The title Science is a registered trademark of AAAS.
Copyright © 2011, American Association for the Advancement of Science