Tightness-looseness across the 50 united states.

Jesse R Harrington, Michele J Gelfand
Author Information
  1. Jesse R Harrington: Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 jesserh@umd.edu mgelfand@umd.edu.
  2. Michele J Gelfand: Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 jesserh@umd.edu mgelfand@umd.edu.

Abstract

This research demonstrates wide variation in tightness-looseness (the strength of punishment and degree of latitude/permissiveness) at the state level in the United States, as well as its association with a variety of ecological and historical factors, psychological characteristics, and state-level outcomes. Consistent with theory and past research, ecological and man-made threats--such as a higher incidence of natural disasters, greater disease prevalence, fewer natural resources, and greater degree of external threat--predicted increased tightness at the state level. Tightness is also associated with higher trait conscientiousness and lower trait openness, as well as a wide array of outcomes at the state level. Compared with loose states, tight states have higher levels of social stability, including lowered drug and alcohol use, lower rates of homelessness, and lower social disorganization. However, tight states also have higher incarceration rates, greater discrimination and inequality, lower creativity, and lower happiness relative to loose states. In all, tightness-looseness provides a parsimonious explanation of the wide variation we see across the 50 states of the United States of America.

Keywords

References

  1. Behav Brain Sci. 2012 Apr;35(2):61-79 [PMID: 22289223]
  2. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012 Dec;38(12):1644-58 [PMID: 22988054]
  3. J Appl Psychol. 2006 Nov;91(6):1225-44 [PMID: 17100480]
  4. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2008 Sep;3(5):339-69 [PMID: 26158954]
  5. Psychol Bull. 2003 May;129(3):339-75 [PMID: 12784934]
  6. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998 Aug;75(2):408-19 [PMID: 9731316]
  7. PLoS One. 2013 May 29;8(5):e64417 [PMID: 23734200]
  8. Science. 2011 May 27;332(6033):1100-4 [PMID: 21617077]
  9. Psychol Sci. 2011 Feb;22(2):176-83 [PMID: 21196534]
  10. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 May;96(5):1029-46 [PMID: 19379034]
  11. Disasters. 2008 Jun;32(2):303-15 [PMID: 18380857]
  12. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2010 Jan;5(1):5-21 [PMID: 26162059]
  13. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996 May;70(5):945-59 [PMID: 8656339]

MeSH Term

City Planning
Cross-Cultural Comparison
Cultural Characteristics
Cultural Diversity
Disasters
Ecosystem
Humans
Public Health
Rural Population
Social Conditions
Social Conformity
Social Problems
Social Values
Socioeconomic Factors
United States

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0stateslowerhigherwidestatelevelgreaterresearchvariationtightness-loosenessdegreeUnitedStateswellecologicaloutcomesnaturalalsotraitloosetightsocialratesacross50demonstratesstrengthpunishmentlatitude/permissivenessassociationvarietyhistoricalfactorspsychologicalcharacteristicsstate-levelConsistenttheorypastman-madethreats--suchincidencedisastersdiseaseprevalencefewerresourcesexternalthreat--predictedincreasedtightnessTightnessassociatedconscientiousnessopennessarrayComparedlevelsstabilityincludinglowereddrugalcoholusehomelessnessdisorganizationHoweverincarcerationdiscriminationinequalitycreativityhappinessrelativeprovidesparsimoniousexplanationseeAmericaTightness-loosenessunitedcultureecologyindexnorms

Similar Articles

Cited By (105)