Differences Between Tight and Loose
Cultures
1
Differences between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation Study
Michele J. Gelfand,1* Jana L. Raver,2 Lisa Nishii,3 Lisa M. Leslie,4 lanetta Lun,1 Beng Chong Lim,5 Lili Duan,6
Assaf Almaliach,
7 Soon Ang,8 Jakobina Arnadottir,9 Zeynep Aycan,10 Klaus Boehnke,11 Pawel Boski,12 Rosa
Cabecinhas,
13 Darius Chan,14 Jagdeep Chhokar,15 Alessia D'Amato,16 Montse Ferrer,17 Iris C. Fischlmayr,18
Ronald Fischer,
19 Marta Fulup,20 James Georgas,21 Emiko S. Kashima,22 Yoshishima Kashima,23 Kibum
Kim,
24 Alain Lempereur,25 Patricia Marquez,26 Rozhan Othman,27 Bert Overlaet,28 Penny
Panagiotopoulou,
29 Karl Peltzer,30 Lorena R. Perez-Florizno,31 Larisa Ponomarenko,32 Anu Realo,33 Vidar
Schei,
34 Manfred Schmitt,35 Peter B. Smith,36 Nazar Soomro,37 Erna Szabo,18 Nalinee Taveesin,38 Midori
Toyama,
39 Evert Van de Vliert,40 Naharika Vohra,41 Colleen Ward,42 Susumu Yamaguchi 43
ⁱUniversity of Maryland. ²Queen's School of Business, Canada. ³Cornell University. ⁴ University of Minnesota.
5
Singapore
and Nanyang Business School.
6
McKinsey & Company, Washington, DC. ⁷BIP Institute of Psychology Ltd., Israel.
8
Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore. ⁹Kaplaskjolsvegur, Reykjavik, Iceland.
10
Koc University, Turkey. Jacobs University,
Bremen, Germany.
12
War saw School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Poland.
13
University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
14
Chinese University of Hong Kong.
15
Indian Institute of Management, India.
16
Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru,
17
University of Valencia, Spain.
18
Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.
19
Victoria University of Wellington, New
Zealand. ²⁰Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary.
21
University of Athens, Greece. ²²School of Psychological
Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3086, Australia. ²³ University of Melbourne, Australia. ²⁴Sungkyunkwan
University, Seoul, Korea. ²⁵ESSEC Business School, Cedex, France. ²⁶University of San Diego, San Diego, CA. ²⁷Selangor,
Malaysia. ²⁸KU Leuven, Belgium. ²⁹University of Patras, Greece. ³⁰Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South
Africa.
31
Investigadora Colegio de la Fontera Norte, Tijuana, Baja California, México. ³² Odessa National University,
Ukraine. ³³ University of Tartu, Estonia. ³⁴ Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Bergen, Norway.
³⁵Universitat Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany. ³⁶ University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. ³⁷ University of Sindh, Hyderabad,
Pakistan. ³⁸33 Soonvijai 4, Bangkok 10310, Thailand. ³⁹ Gakushuin University, Tokyo, Japan. ⁴⁰University of Groningen,
Groningen, Netherlands.
41
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India. ⁴²Victoria University of Wellington, New
Zealand. ⁴³ University of Tokyo, Japan.
Differences Between Tight and Loose
Cultures
2
Abstract
With data from 33 nations, we illustrate the differences between cultures that are tight (have many
strong norms and a low tolerance of deviant behavior) versus loose (have weak social norms and a high
tolerance of deviant behavior). Tightness-looseness is part of a complex, loosely integrated multilevel
system that comprises distal ecological and historical threats (e.g., high population density, resource
scarcity, a history of territorial conflict, and disease and environmental threats), broad versus narrow
socialization in societal institutions (e.g., autocracy, media regulations), the strength of everyday
recurring situations, and micro-level psychological affordances (e.g., prevention self-guides, high
regulatory strength, need for structure). This research advances knowledge that can foster cross-cultural
understanding in a world of increasing global interdependence and has implications for modeling
cultural change.
Differences Between Tight and Loose
Cultures
3
How "other" cultures differ from one's own has piqued the curiosity of scholars and laypeople
across the centuries. As long ago as 400 B.C.E., Herodotus documented a wide variety of cultural
practices that he observed in his travels in The Histories (J). Only in the past few decades have scientists
begun to move beyond descriptive accounts of cultural differences to empirically assess ways in which
national cultures vary. We examine a neglected source of cultural variation that is dominating the geo-
political landscape and has the potential to be a major source of cultural conflict: the difference
between nations that are "tight"-have strong norms and a low tolerance of deviant behavior and those
that are "loose"-have weak norms and a high tolerance of deviant behavior.
Early anthropological research showed the promise of this distinction. In his study of21
traditional societies, Pelto (2) documented wide variation in the expression of and adherence to social
norms. The Hutterites, Hanno, and Lubara were among the tightest societies, with very strong norms
and severe sanctions for norm violation, whereas the Kung Bushman, Cubeo, and the Skolt Lapps were
among the loosest societies, with ambiguous norms and greater permissiveness for norm violation.
Pelto speculated that these societies may have different ecologies, with tight societies having a higher
population per square mile and a higher dependence on crops as compared to loose societies. Later
research indeed showed that agricultural societies (e.g., the Temne of Sierra Leone), which require
strong norms to foster the coordination necessary to grow crops for survival, had strict child-rearing
practices and children who were high on conformity. Hunting and fishing societies (e.g., the Inuit) had
lenient child-rearing practices and children who were low on conformity (3, 4).
Despite evidence of the importance of this contrast in traditional societies, there exists no
insight into how tightness-looseness operates in modern nations. The goal of this research is to fill this
void. Drawing on theorizing in cultural psychology (5, 6), we propose that tightness-looseness is part of a
complex, loosely integrated system that involves processes across multiple levels of analysis (Fig. 1). We
Differences Between Tight and Loose
Cultures
4
theorize that the strength of social norms and tolerance of deviant behavior-the core distinction
between tight and loose cultures-is afforded by numerous distal ecological and human-made societal
threats and societal institutions and practices. The strength of social norms and tolerance of deviant
behavior is further reflected and promoted in the predominance of strong versus weak situations that
are recurrent in everyday local worlds, and is reinforced through psychological processes that are
attuned to situational requirements. We provide an empirical test that shows how ecological, historical,
and institutional factors, along with everyday situations and psychological processes, together
constitute cultural systems.
We predict that tightness-looseness is afforded by a broad array of ecological and human-made
societal threats (or lack thereof) that nations have historically encountered (4, 7). Ecological and human-
made threats increase the need for strong norms and punishment of deviant behavior in the service of
social coordination for survival whether it is to reduce chaos in nations that have high population
density, deal with resource scarcity, coordinate in the face of natural disasters, defend against territorial
threats, or contain the spread of disease. Nations facing these particular challenges are predicted to
develop strong norms and have low tolerance of deviant behavior to enhance order and social
coordination to effectively deal with such threats. Nations with few ecological and human-made threats,
by contrast, have a much lower need for order and social coordination, affording weaker social norms
and much more latitude (8).
The strength of social norms and tolerance of deviant behavior is also afforded by and reflected
in prevailing institutions and practices. Institutions in tight nations have narrow socialization that
restricts the range of permissible behavior, whereas institutions in loose nations encourage broad
socialization that affords a wide range of permissible behavior (9). Relative to loose nations, tight
nations are more likely to have autocratic governing systems that suppress dissent, to have media
Differences Between Tight and Loose
Cultures
5
institutions (broadcast, paper, Internet) with restricted content and more laws and controls, and to have
criminal justice systems with higher monitoring, more severe punishment (e.g., the death penalty), and
greater deterrence and control of crime. Tight nations will also be more religious, thereby reinforcing
adherence to moral conventions and rules that can facilitate social order and coordination (JO).
Challenges to societal institutions (e.g., demonstrations, boycotts, strikes) will be much less common in
tight nations than in loose ones. These institutions and practices simultaneously reflect and support the
strength of norms and tolerance of deviance that exists in nations.
Tightness-looseness is manifested not only in distal ecological, historical, and institutional
contexts but also in everyday situations in local worlds (e.g., at home, in restaurants, classrooms, public
parks, libraries, the workplace) that individuals inhabit (5, 6). We theorize that tightness-looseness is
reflected in the predominance of strong versus weak everyday situations (11, 12). Strong situations have
a more restricted range of appropriate behavior, have high censuring potential, and leave little room for
individual discretion. Weak situations place few external constraints on individuals, afford a wide range
of behavioral options, and leave much room for individual discretion. Situational strength has been long
discussed among psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists (11-14) but has yet to be linked to
cultural variation. Tight nations are expected to have a much higher degree of situational constraint
which restricts the range of behavior deemed appropriate across everyday situations (e.g., classrooms,
libraries, public parks, etc.). By contrast, loose nations are expected to have a much weaker situational
structure, affording a much wider range of permissible behavior across everyday situations. The strength
(or weakness) of everyday recurring situations within nations simultaneously reflects and supports the
degree of order and social coordination in the larger cultural context.
We further theorize that there is a close connection between the strength (versus weakness) of
everyday situations and the chronic psychological processes of individuals within nations. In this view,