A global analysis of cultural tightness in non-industrial societies.

Joshua Conrad Jackson, Michele Gelfand, Carol R Ember
Author Information
  1. Joshua Conrad Jackson: Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
  2. Michele Gelfand: Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
  3. Carol R Ember: Human Relations Area Files, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.

Abstract

Human groups have long faced ecological threats such as resource stress and warfare, and must also overcome strains on coordination and cooperation that are imposed by growing social complexity. Tightness-looseness (TL) theory suggests that societies react to these challenges by becoming culturally tighter, with stronger norms and harsher punishment of deviant behaviour. TL theory further predicts that tightening is associated with downstream effects on social, political and religious institutions. Here, we comprehensively test TL theory in a sample of non-industrial societies. Since previous studies of TL theory have sampled contemporary countries and American states, our analysis allows us to examine whether the theory generalizes to societies in the ethnographic record and also to explore new correlates of tightness that vary more in non-industrial societies. We find that tightness covaries across domains of social norms, such as socialization, law and gender. We also show that tightness correlates with several theorized antecedents (ecological threat, complexity, residential homogeneity) and several theorized consequences (intergroup contact, political authoritarianism, moralizing religious beliefs). We integrate these findings into a holistic model of tightness in non-industrial societies and provide metrics that can be used by future studies on cultural tightness in the ethnographic record.

Keywords

Associated Data

figshare | 10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5025719

References

  1. Science. 2016 Jan 8;351(6269):aad2622 [PMID: 26744408]
  2. Science. 2011 May 27;332(6033):1100-4 [PMID: 21617077]
  3. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Mar;3(3):244-250 [PMID: 30953010]
  4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jun 3;111(22):7990-5 [PMID: 24843116]
  5. Hum Nat. 2020 Sep;31(3):249-271 [PMID: 32803730]
  6. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Nov 25;111(47):16784-9 [PMID: 25385605]
  7. Science. 2019 Nov 8;366(6466): [PMID: 31699908]
  8. PLoS One. 2019 Sep 6;14(9):e0221953 [PMID: 31490981]
  9. Psychol Sci. 2020 Mar;31(3):280-292 [PMID: 31990629]
  10. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017 Sep;12(5):800-809 [PMID: 28972845]
  11. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jan 9;115(2):E144-E151 [PMID: 29269395]

MeSH Term

Cross-Cultural Comparison
Culture
Humans
Punishment
Religion
Social Norms

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0societiestightnesstheorynon-industrialTLalsosocialculturalecologicalcomplexitynormspoliticalreligiousstudiesanalysisethnographicrecordcorrelatesseveraltheorizedHumangroupslongfacedthreatsresourcestresswarfaremustovercomestrainscoordinationcooperationimposedgrowingTightness-loosenesssuggestsreactchallengesbecomingculturallytighterstrongerharsherpunishmentdeviantbehaviourpredictstighteningassociateddownstreameffectsinstitutionscomprehensivelytestsampleSinceprevioussampledcontemporarycountriesAmericanstatesallowsusexaminewhethergeneralizesexplorenewvaryfindcovariesacrossdomainssocializationlawgendershowantecedentsthreatresidentialhomogeneityconsequencesintergroupcontactauthoritarianismmoralizingbeliefsintegratefindingsholisticmodelprovidemetricscanusedfutureglobalevolutiontightness–looseness

Similar Articles

Cited By