1. Waters CN, et al. 2016. The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 351, 2622 ( 10.1126/science.aad2622) [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Gelfand MJ, Harrington JR, Jackson JC. 2017. The strength of social norms across human groups. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 800–809. ( 10.1177/1745691617708631) [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Gelfand MJ, et al. 2011. Differences between tight and loose cultures: a 33-nation study. Science 332, 1100–1104. ( 10.1126/science.1197754) [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Harrington JR, Gelfand MJ. 2014. Tightness–looseness across the 50 united states. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 7990–7995. ( 10.1073/pnas.1317937111) [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Jackson JC, et al. 2019. Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice. PLoS ONE 14, e0221953 ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0221953) [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Aktas M, Gelfand MJ, Hanges PJ. 2016. Cultural tightness–looseness and perceptions of effective leadership. J. Cross-Cultural Psychol. 47, 294–309. ( 10.1177/0022022115606802) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Jackson JC, Gelfand M, De S, Fox A. 2019. The loosening of American culture over 200 years is associated with a creativity–order trade-off. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 244 ( 10.1038/s41562-018-0516-z) [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Caluori NC, Jackson JC, Gray K, Gelfand MJ. 2020. Conflict changes how people view God. Psychol. Sci. 31, 280–292. ( 10.1177/0956797619895286) [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Herodotus, Waterfield R, Dewald C. 2008. The histories. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
10. Pelto PJ. 1968. The differences between ‘tight’ and ‘loose’ societies. Trans-action 5, 37–40. ( 10.1007/BF03180447) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Gupta AK, Tyagi P, Sehgal VK. 2011. Drought disaster challenges and mitigation in India: strategic appraisal. Curr. Sci. 100, 1795–1806. [Google Scholar]
12. Roos P, Gelfand M, Nau D, Lun J. 2015. Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: an evolutionary basis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 129, 14–23. ( 10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.01.003) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Turchin P, Currie TE, Whitehouse H, François P, Feeney K, Mullins D, Mendel-Gleason G. 2018. Quantitative historical analysis uncovers a single dimension of complexity that structures global variation in human social organization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E144–E151. ( 10.1073/pnas.1708800115) [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Barry H III, Child IL, Bacon MK. 1959. Relation of child training to subsistence economy. Am. Anthropol. 61, 51–63. ( 10.1525/aa.1959.61.1.02a00080) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. White DR. 1989. Focused ethnographic bibliography: standard cross-cultural sample. Behav. Sci. Res. 23, 1–145. ( 10.1177/106939718902300102) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Gefland MG, Harrington J, Fernandez J. 2017. Cultural tightness-looseness: ecological affordances and implications for personality. In The Praeger handbook of personality across cultures (ed. Church AT.), pp. 206–236. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. [Google Scholar]
17. Schneider DM, Gough K (eds) 1961. Matrilineal kinship. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
18. Ember M, Ember CR. 1971. The conditions favoring matrilocal versus patrilocal residence. Am. Anthropol. 73, 571–594. ( 10.1525/aa.1971.73.3.02a00040) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Schulz JF, Bahrami-Rad D, Beauchamp JP, Henrich J. 2019. The church, intensive kinship, and global psychological variation. Science 366, eaau5141 ( 10.1126/science.aau5141) [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Haslam N. 2016. Concept creep: psychology's expanding concepts of harm and pathology. Psychol. Inq. 27, 1–17. ( 10.1080/1047840X.2016.1082418) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Ember M. 1997. Evolution of the human relations area files. Cross-Cultural Res. 31, 3–15. ( 10.1177/106939719703100101) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Ember CR, Ember M. 2009. Cross-cultural research methods. Lanham, MD: Rowman AltaMira. [Google Scholar]
23. Low BS. 1988. Pathogen stress and polygyny in humans. In Human reproductive behavior: a Darwinian perspective (eds Betzig L, Borgerhoff Mulder M, Turke P), pp. 115–127. Cambridge, UK: CUP Archive. [Google Scholar]
24. Ross MH. 1983. Political decision making and conflict: additional cross-cultural codes and scales. Ethnology 22, 169–192. ( 10.2307/3773578) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Ember CR, Ember M. 1992. Warfare, aggression, and resource problems: cross-cultural codes. Behav. Sci. Res. 26, 169–226. ( 10.1177/106939719202600108) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Dirks R. 1993. Starvation and famine: cross-cultural codes and some hypothesis tests. Cross-Cultural Res. 27, 28–69. ( 10.1177/106939719302700103) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Lang H. 1998. CONAN: an electronic code-text data-base for cross-cultural studies. World Cultures 9, 13–56. [Google Scholar]
28. Murdock GP, Provost C. 1973. Measurement of cultural complexity. Ethnology 12, 379–392. ( 10.2307/3773367) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Levinson D, Malone MJ. 1980. Toward explaining human culture: a critical review of the findings of worldwide cross-cultural research. New Haven, CT: Human Relations Area Files. [Google Scholar]
30. Murdock GP. 1967. Ethnographic atlas: a summary. Ethnology 6, 109–236. ( 10.2307/3772751) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Skoggard I, Ember C, Pitek E, Carulus C, Jackson JC. In press. Resource stress predicts changes in religious belief and increases in sharing behavior. Hum. Nat. [Google Scholar]
32. Botero CA, Gardner B, Kirby KR, Bulbulia J, Gavin MC, Gray RD. 2014. The ecology of religious beliefs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 16 784–16 789. ( 10.1073/pnas.1408701111) [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M. 2005. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind, vol. 2. New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
34. Schwartz SH. 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism: new cultural dimensions of values. In Cross-cultural research and methodology series, Vol. 18. Individualism and collectivism: theory, method, and applications (eds Kim U, Triandis HC, Kâğitçibaşi Ç, Choi S-C, Yoon G), pp. 85–119. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
35. Carpenter S. 2000. Effects of cultural tightness and collectivism on self-concept and causal attributions. Cross Cult. Res. 34, 38–56. [Google Scholar]
Page 2
A structural equation model of cultural tightness in non-traditional societies. Open arrows represent regression paths. Closed arrows represent indicators of the cultural tightness latent variable. Unshaded boxes represent theorized predictors, outcomes and indicators of tightness and shaded boxes represent control variables. All coefficients have been standardized, which means that they can be interpreted as effect sizes similar to r values in a correlation. Coefficients for control variables have been omitted here for clarity, but all coefficients are presented in the electronic supplementary material. Single-asterisk relationships represent statistical significance at p < 0.05. Double-asterisk relationships represent statistical significance at p < 0.005. †Geography and subsistence are also entered as control variables for the association between tightness and its theorized consequences, in addition to predicting tightness itself.
Click on the image to see a larger version.