Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Commentary

Universal and culture-specific patterns of tightness-looseness across the 31 Chinese provinces

Michele J. Gelfand
  1. aDepartment of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS April 2, 2019 116 (14) 6522-6524; first published March 18, 2019; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1902401116
Michele J. Gelfand
aDepartment of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: mjgelfand@gmail.com
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Psychology of late is witnessing a cultural revolution. Once a science that was criticized as largely culture blind (research being devoid of any focus on culture) and culture bound (testing the majority of theories on Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic, or WEIRD, samples) (1), culture is now becoming central in diverse areas, including neuroscience, cognitive science, clinical and developmental psychology, social and organizational behavior, and related disciplines (2). Increasingly, research has also begun to move beyond merely accounting for variation across national cultures to understanding cultural variation within nations (3, 4). An exciting question is whether we can find any homology of cultural processes across these levels of analyses while also illuminating distinct patterns that arise in different cultural contexts (5). The study in PNAS by Chua et al. (6) represents a massive effort toward these important scientific goals in the unique context of China.

With its 1.4 billion people—one-fifth of the world’s population—spread across 9.6 million square kilometers, 56 groups, and 31 provinces (7), China is a fascinating context to examine culture theories that have been developed in the West. China is undergoing rapid cultural change and is already an economic superpower that will shape global trade and issues of war and peace for years to come. However, while there are many economic, political, and technological analyses of the country, with some exceptions (e.g., ref. 8), there has been little attention given to emerging cultural dynamics within China, an important void that Chua et al. (6) begin to fill.

The study by Chua et al. (6) is the first of its kind to investigate cultural variation in the strength of social norms, or tightness-looseness (TL), across the 31 Chinese provinces. Research has illuminated important differences in cultures that are tight (i.e., those that have strict rules and punishments for deviance) from cultures that are loose (i.e., those that have weaker rules and are more permissive). Of particular interest are the factors that cause the evolution of tightness and its multilevel consequences. One such framework is shown in Fig. 1 (9), which illustrates how the strength of social norms is adaptive to different ecological, historical, and political conditions, which in turn, affects the psychological processes that are adaptive in such contexts.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Multilevel theory of TL. Reprinted from ref. 9 with permission from AAAS.

As illustrated in Fig. 1, differences in TL are theorized to reflect varying degrees of historical and ecological threat. Groups with more natural disasters, higher disease prevalence, fewer natural resources, and greater numbers of territorial invasions develop stronger norms and sanctions to coordinate to survive such threats. By contrast, groups that have fewer ecological and human-made threats can afford to have weaker norms and permissiveness, given that they have less need for coordinated social action. Fig. 1 also shows that the strength of norms is further reflected and promoted through broad versus narrow socialization in societal institutions—including the government, legal system, media, schools, and religion (10), as well as in everyday situations (11)—that dictate the range of tolerable behavior. In turn, at the individual level, people exposed to strong norms have higher felt accountability (12) (i.e., they feel compelled to obey and conform to normative expectations lest they face punishment) and, accordingly, tend to have greater self-monitoring and conscientiousness, lower openness, stronger self-regulation, and higher need for structure, all of which are adaptive to contexts of higher threat.

This framework was first shown to explain national variation in TL (9) and, later, to account for differences within the US states and social classes (5). Similar to the national level, state-level tightness in the United States is positively related to greater ecological and historical threat (4). Tight states have higher death rates due to natural disasters, greater food insecurity, and more disease prevalence. Tight states have more law enforcement per capita, desire greater media restriction and endorse the use of any force necessary to maintain law and order, and display a more black-and-white sense of morality. Tight states have higher conscientiousness (a personality trait that has been associated with greater impulse control, cautiousness, self-discipline, and desire for orderliness). Looser states, in contrast, have higher openness (a personality trait associated with nontraditional values and beliefs, breadth of experience, tolerance of other cultures, and a preference for originality). Tight states have greater social organization (e.g., lower mobility, less divorce) and greater self-control (e.g., less drug and alcohol abuse), while loose states have less discrimination and higher creativity (e.g., more utility patents and artists per capita).

Chua et al. (6) build on this research and present the first exploration of TL variation within China. Their research is notable for a number of reasons. First, the study is extremely ambitious in terms of its scope, including over 11,000 individuals across 31 provinces, with variables that span multiple levels of analysis. The authors also expand the theory of TL in novel directions. For example, they test the link between TL and incremental or radical innovation, both at the province level and individual level, and explore how the unique geographical and political context of China relates to TL differences across the provinces (e.g., distance of Beijing to the province, length of visits from China’s president, historic occupation by the Japanese). Moreover, they seek to replicate results across different time frames and attend to numerous methodological concerns in cross-cultural research (e.g., issues of aggregation, reliability, translation, and back translation).

The results are fascinating. Despite vast differences in the history, ecology, culture, language, and government across the United States and China, Chua et al. (6) find some notable similarities in patterns of TL variation. Provincial-level tightness is associated with numerous measures of threat, including the extent to which a province was destroyed and occupied by the Japanese during World War II, whether a province is located on a national border, number of environmental emergencies, incidence of communicable diseases, and amount of pollution. As in Fig. 1, sociopolitical variables predict provincial tightness, including stronger governmental controls (government employees per capita and local laws) and religious presence—both of which restrict the range of behavior. Estimates also show that surveillance is rampant in many of the tight provinces, including Guangdong, Zhejiang, Shandong, Shanghai, and Beijing (13, 14), which tend to have many migrants. Being monitored—by god, government, or people—makes individuals more rule abiding (15). Provincial tightness is also related to behavioral constraints in everyday situations (9) and to personality differences, including self-monitoring, conscientiousness, and openness (4, 9). Extending previous research (4, 16), loose provinces have higher rates of radical innovation, whereas tight provinces have higher rates of incremental innovation. The focus on incremental innovation in tight cultures echoes the Chinese philosophy, advocated decades ago by Deng Xiaoping, that one must “cross the river by feeling the stones”; in other words, be cautious when testing out new ideas (17).

Chua et al. (6) also present findings on TL variation based on the unique Chinese context. For example, they find that population density is related to provincial tightness, consistent with national-level research on TL (9). In contrast, population density in the 50 US states is unrelated to tightness, which may reflect a restriction of range of density in this context. While urbanization predicts tightness in China, the percentage of rural areas predicts tightness in the United States (4). Differences in monitoring may partially explain these different patterns. In the United States, rural areas have more informal monitoring, whereas cities have more anonymity and latitude. By contrast, Chinese urban areas have high levels of monitoring, whereas looser provinces tend to be less densely populated and are geographically far from the “eyes” of the central government. More generally, these findings suggest that there is no “universal” culture developing as countries urbanize. Effects, as we have seen, are unique to particular national contexts.

The study by Chua et al. is the first of its kind to investigate cultural variation in the strength of social norms, or tightness-looseness (TL), across the 31 Chinese provinces.

Intriguingly, Chua et al. (6) find that tight provinces have higher happiness and economic growth. Research has indeed shown that tight cultures, such as Singapore and Japan, can be both wealthy and happy (18). This may reflect a “cultural match,” wherein people are happier when they conform to the dominant cultural views. Since China is generally tight, tight provinces may be happier. Since America is loose, loose states may be happier. However, other unique dynamics may be at work in China. The government appears to be loosening economic norms in the highly densely populated urbanized coastal areas and special economic zones—giving businesses unprecedented freedom from the central government—while simultaneously tightening social controls in these very areas, ostensibly to keep order where there could be chaos. This tight-loose combination of high constraint and monitoring, yet also high levels of economic freedom, is a unique cultural pattern that may contribute in part to higher levels of well-being in the tight Chinese provinces.

Of course, many questions about TL variation in China await future research, and caution should be used when interpreting some results. For example, the effects of TL across China are comparatively small, with TL only explaining 4% of the variance across provinces. Although China is large and diverse, the top-down control of the government and strong Confucian culture may restrict the range of cultural differences. More complex path modeling linking threat, urbanization, provincial-level gross domestic product, government controls, and TL would be useful, as would more attention to the longitudinal structure of the data. Additional indicators of tolerance (e.g., measures of cultural superiority, attitudes toward foreigners and stigmatized groups) are needed to see if the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender findings generalize, particularly given that tight provinces have lower personality openness. And while the happiness findings are intriguing, they should be placed in the broader context that China ranks as one of the lowest countries worldwide in happiness and that even relatively higher ratings may be heavily influenced by government narratives on what constitutes happiness—namely, loyalty to the “great family of the Chinese nation” (19).

More generally, Chua et al. (6) illustrate the importance of looking for universal patterns in the antecedents and consequences of TL while also paying attention to unique patterns that arise in different national contexts. The work also highlights the need to understand the different mechanisms of TL across cultures. TL is arguably more top-down in autocratic contexts, which enforces monitoring and control, yet more bottom-up in democratic contexts, in which founding conditions (e.g., the types of people who settled in certain areas) play an important role in differences in the strength of social norms (see ref. 15). It also invites research that looks at how TL is manifest in different domains of life (e.g., economic, social, political). And as China continues to undergo rapid cultural change and urbanization, it will be fascinating to look at TL dynamics in the coming decades.

Footnotes

  • ↵1Email: mjgelfand{at}gmail.com.
  • Author contributions: M.J.G. wrote the paper.

  • The author declares no conflict of interest.

  • See companion article on page 6720.

Published under the PNAS license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Henrich J,
    2. Heine SJ,
    3. Norenzayan A
    (2010) Beyond WEIRD: Towards a broad-based behavioral science. Behav Brain Sci 33:111–135.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Gelfand MJ,
    2. Kashima Y
    (2016) Editorial overview: Culture: Advances in the science of culture and psychology. Curr Opin Psychol 8:iv–x.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Vandello JA,
    2. Cohen D
    (1999) Patterns of individualism and collectivism across the United States. J Pers Soc Psychol 77:279–292.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Harrington JR,
    2. Gelfand MJ
    (2014) Tightness-looseness across the 50 united states. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:7990–7995.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Gelfand MJ,
    2. Harrington JR,
    3. Jackson JC
    (2017) The strength of social norms across human groups. Perspect Psychol Sci 12:800–809.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Chua RYJ,
    2. Huang KG,
    3. Jin M
    (2019) Mapping cultural tightness and its links to innovation, urbanization, and happiness across 31 provinces in China. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:6720–6725.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Central Intelligence Agency
    (2019) The World Factbook: East Asia/Southeast Asia: China. Available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html. Accessed February 22, 2019.
  8. ↵
    1. Talhelm T, et al.
    (2014) Large-scale psychological differences within China explained by rice versus wheat agriculture. Science 344:603–608.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Gelfand MJ, et al.
    (2011) Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science 332:1100–1104.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Arnett JJ
    (1995) Broad and narrow socialization: The family in the context of a cultural theory. J Marriage Fam 57:617–628.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. Magnusson E,
    2. Endler NS
    1. Mischel W
    (1977) The interaction of person and situation. Personality at the Crossroads, eds Magnusson E, Endler NS (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ).
  12. ↵
    1. Ferris GR
    1. Frink DD,
    2. Klimoski RJ
    (1998) Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, ed Ferris GR (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), Vol 16, pp 1–51.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Leigh K,
    2. Li D
    (December 1, 2018) How China is planning to rank 1.3 billion people. Bloomberg. Available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-01/china-s-radical-plan-to-judge-each-citizen-s-behavior-quicktake. Accessed February 24, 2019.
  14. ↵
    1. Mistreanu S
    (April 3, 2018) Life inside China’s social credit laboratory. Foreign Policy. Available at https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/03/life-inside-chinas-social-credit-laboratory/. Accessed February 24, 2019.
  15. ↵
    1. Gelfand MJ
    (2018) Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire Our World (Scribner, New York).
  16. ↵
    1. Chua R,
    2. Roth Y,
    3. Lemoine JF
    (2015) The impact of culture on creativity: How cultural tightness and cultural distance affect global innovation crowdsourcing work. Adm Sci Q 60:189–227.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. He HY
    (2016) Dictionary of the Political Thought of the People’s Republic of China (Routledge, London), pp 287.
  18. ↵
    1. Harrington JR,
    2. Boski P,
    3. Gelfand MJ
    (2015) Culture and national well-being: Should societies emphasize freedom or constraint? PLoS One 10:e0127173.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    The Economist (February 16, 2019) Why so glum, China? The Economist. Available at https://www.economist.com/china/2019/02/16/why-so-glum-china. Accessed February 24, 2019.
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Universal and culture-specific patterns of tightness-looseness across the 31 Chinese provinces
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Universal and culture-specific patterns of tightness-looseness across the 31 Chinese provinces
Michele J. Gelfand
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2019, 116 (14) 6522-6524; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1902401116

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Universal and culture-specific patterns of tightness-looseness across the 31 Chinese provinces
Michele J. Gelfand
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2019, 116 (14) 6522-6524; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1902401116
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Social Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences

See related content:

  • Mapping cultural tightness and its links to innovation, urbanization, and happiness across 31 provinces in China
    - Mar 04, 2019
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 116 (14)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Water from a faucet fills a glass.
News Feature: How “forever chemicals” might impair the immune system
Researchers are exploring whether these ubiquitous fluorinated molecules might worsen infections or hamper vaccine effectiveness.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Dmitry Naumov.
Reflection of clouds in the still waters of Mono Lake in California.
Inner Workings: Making headway with the mysteries of life’s origins
Recent experiments and simulations are starting to answer some fundamental questions about how life came to be.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Radoslaw Lecyk.
Cave in coastal Kenya with tree growing in the middle.
Journal Club: Small, sharp blades mark shift from Middle to Later Stone Age in coastal Kenya
Archaeologists have long tried to define the transition between the two time periods.
Image credit: Ceri Shipton.
Illustration of groups of people chatting
Exploring the length of human conversations
Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert explore why conversations almost never end when people want them to.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Panda bear hanging in a tree
How horse manure helps giant pandas tolerate cold
A study finds that giant pandas roll in horse manure to increase their cold tolerance.
Image credit: Fuwen Wei.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490