Tag: looseness

The Americans: What is the ‘American’ Identity According to Tight Versus Loose Cultures?

Posted on by Leave a comment

When you hear the term ‘Americans,’ what do you picture?

A multicultural tapestry of people of different races?

Or a homogenous group of white folk?

How Americans identify ‘the American’ may depend on whether they come from a tight or loose culture.

Implicit Associations

This research delves into the association between cultural tightness–looseness and implicit bias related to American identity. 

Leveraging two expansive datasets, the study scrutinized the implicit links between American and ethnic identities, focusing on Asian or European Americans and Native or White Americans.

What sets this research apart is the integration of state-level indicators encompassing cultural tightness–looseness, conservatism, openness to experience, and the proportion of Asian or Native residents. 

Tightness and looseness of culture has to do with the tolerance and social norms.

For reference, the study states that

“Tighter cultures have stricter social norms and little tolerance for deviance from normative standards, while looser cultures are characterized by fluid societal expectations and tolerance for a wider range of opinions, attitudes, and behaviors.”

Based on this description, you might assume that tighter cultures would have a more Eurocentric normative standard of what it means to be American, while looser cultures would have a more inclusive view.

And you’d be right in that hypothesis.

The American

Through meticulous multilevel modeling analyses, researchers found this hypothesis to be correct.

Their holistic approach reveals that, within tighter states, the implicit definition of Americanness aligns rigidly with Eurocentric norms, strengthening associations with White identities while relatively excluding Asian and Native Americans. 

In contrast, looser states embrace a more flexible normative landscape, fostering a broader and more inclusive American identity.

Implicit Bias

Venturing into uncharted territory, the research challenges prevailing perspectives on implicit biases. 

While previous studies hinted at a generalized prejudice perspective, this research underscores the need to differentiate implicit biases rather than assume a unified construct. 

Across diverse implicit associations, cultural tightness–looseness emerges as a consistent and generalized predictor, highlighting its broad impact on various facets of societal perceptions.

The study delves into the potential shades of cultural tightness–looseness, acknowledging that its influence may not be universal. 

It prompts speculation about boundary conditions, suggesting that the impact of cultural tightness may be more pronounced when implicit biases have normative foundations or implications. 

This perspective encourages a deeper exploration of specific mechanisms shaping these cultural variations.

Contrary to expectations, the relationship between cultural tightness–looseness and implicit biases is not uniform among different ethnic groups within the same state, sparking intriguing questions about underlying mechanisms and moderation effects.

While the study acknowledges important limitations, such as its correlational nature and the need for more fine-grained analyses across smaller entities, it stands as a pioneering effort in unraveling the interaction between cultural context and individual implicit associations. 

Culture Wars: How Tightness & Looseness Create Different Cultural Dynamics Across the 50 States

Posted on by Leave a comment

If you’re from the U.S., what do most people identify with your state?

Are its citizens stereotypical “celebrity-worshipping leftists”?

Are they “elitist yuppies”?

Are they “country bumpkins” of middle America?

Stereotypes abound, and these stereotypes are often based on the culture that exists at the state level.

Over the past few weeks, we’ve looked at tightness and looseness of national cultures.

But every nation has subcultures and regional cultures.

This study delves into the tightness-looseness of the 50 United States.

And what researchers find is a spectrum – some states lean towards tightness, marked by strictly enforced rules and minimal tolerance for deviation, versus those who embrace looseness, with fewer rules and a more accommodating stance towards deviation. 

This study delves deep into the roots of theory, reinforcing the idea that tightness–looseness is not just happenstance. 

Instead, it’s a thoughtful adaptation to the nuances of local environments. 

The Study

In their examination of tightness–looseness – i.e., the intensity of punishment and permissiveness within a social system – researchers created a comprehensive set of potential indicators and refined them to form a composite index comprising nine key items.

This index encapsulates four facets of punishment strength, incorporating factors such as the legality of corporal punishment in schools, historical execution rates, the prevalence of student punishment, and the severity of penalties for marijuana-related offenses. 

Two additional dimensions delve into permissiveness, encompassing the accessibility of alcohol and the legality of same-sex civil unions. 

Institutions reinforcing moral order and constraining behavior are assessed through state-level measures of religiosity and the percentage of individuals with no religious affiliation. 

The final indicator, reflecting looseness, gauges the percentage of the total population that is foreign, offering insights into the degree of international diversity and cultural amalgamation within a state. 

The study then ranked the states from tight to loose based on these indicators.

The Results Are In…

The top 10 tightest states (from highest to lowest): 

  • Mississippi
  • Alabama
  • Arkansas
  • Oklahoma
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Louisiana
  • Kentucky
  • South Carolina
  • North Carolina

And the top 10 loosest states (from highest to lowest):

  • California
  • Oregon
  • Washington
  • Nevada
  • Maine
  • Massachusetts
  • Connecticut
  • Hawaii
  • New Hampshire
  • Vermont

According to the study,

“tightness–looseness can account for the divergence of substance abuse and discrimination rates between states such as Hawaii and Ohio, reliably predicts the psychological differences in conscientiousness and openness between Colorado and Alabama, helps to explain the contrasts in creativity and social organization between Vermont and North Dakota, and provides some understanding concerning the dissimilarity in insularity and resistance toward immigration between Arizona and New York.”

Culture Wars

In essence, this research draws up the fascinating landscape of cultural dynamics across the 50 states of the United States using the tightness-looseness dichotomy.

The study sheds light on the divergence in substance abuse and discrimination rates, the psychological disparities in conscientiousness and openness, and the contrasts in creativity and social organization among states.

Breaking new ground, this challenges the conventional focus on tightness-looseness only at the national level. 

The findings underscore the predictive and explanatory power of tightness-looseness across diverse levels of analysis, paving the way for future research to extend this exploration into organizational and community realms.

While the correlational nature of the research precludes definitive causal inferences, the results align with tightness-looseness theory and broader eco-cultural approaches to understanding cultural differences. 

The study proposes that local environments, shaped by natural disasters, resource scarcity, and other threats, drive the adaptation of cultural norms, behavioral patterns, and psychological traits. 

Tightness emerges as an adaptive response in high-threat environments, fostering norms, impulse control, and orderliness. 

Conversely, low-threat environments cultivate looseness, promoting openness and flexibility.

Unveiling significant policy implications, the research illuminates the contrasting outcomes associated with tight and loose states. 

Tight states boast greater social stability and self-control but also exhibit lower sex equality, increased discrimination, and decreased innovation. 

In contrast, loose states exhibit higher social disorganization and drug use but also embrace creativity, cultural openness, and greater happiness. 

This nuanced perspective offers insights into what has been coined as “culture wars” between states, not just explaining their existence but also delving into their maintenance and psychological roots.

Safety & Health in Tight/Loose Cultures

Posted on by Leave a comment

Over the past few weeks, we’ve been talking about how tightness and looseness in culture can affect everything from workplace attitude and behavior to innovation.

E. Scott Geller’s article in EHSToday delves into how cultural tightness and looseness also impact occupational health and safety.

The article focuses on the work of Professor Gelfand, author of Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How tight and loose cultures wire our world.

Gelfand identifies differences in approach and behavior across cultures regarding rules, regulations, and protocols.

In doing so, we may even begin to understand our cultural differences.

According to Professor Michele Gelfand,

“Tight-loose theory can help deepen our empathy toward those whose way just doesn’t sync with ours.”

What is Tight/Loose Theory?

Gelfand’s tight/loose theory, as detailed in her book, provides insights into the contrasting responses people exhibit when faced with regulations. 

Some comply without argument, some reluctantly adhere, and others fight compliance, vocally and even physically. 

But why?

These differences ultimately have to do with the tightness or looseness of culture.

Tight/Loose Cultures

Distinguishing between tighter countries (for instance, China, Germany, India, Japan, Pakistan, and Singapore) and looser countries (such as, Australia, New Zealand, Greece, the Netherlands, Spain, and the U.S.) comes down to various aspects of society. 

Tighter countries tend to have autocratic governments, higher population densities, historical exposure to infectious diseases and national disasters, and fewer natural resources. 

In these societies, solidarity is higher, contributing to successful pandemic control measures.

Conversely, looser countries exhibit higher immigrant populations, greater creativity, acceptance of diversity, free speech, and tolerance of change. 

However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, looser countries faced challenges due to lower adherence to preventive behaviors. 

Relationship Between Subjective Well-Being & Cultural Tightness

Gelfand and company discovered a curvilinear relationship between subjective well-being (SWB) and cultural tightness, with extremely tight and loose nations displaying the lowest SWB levels.

Not only that, but they had the lowest life expectancies and the lowest gross domestic product per capita.

Moderate countries had the highest SWB and lower suicide rates and depression levels.

This goes to show that extremism at any level is ultimately unhealthy for a society and ineffective.

Future of OHS Management

The cultural dynamic of tightness and looseness extends beyond national borders, impacting various aspects of life, including social norms, interpersonal behaviors, and reactions to occupational health and safety (OHS) rules. 

Involving employees in shaping safety protocols and fostering a sense of autonomy can enhance OHS outcomes in diverse cultural contexts. 

This nuanced understanding of cultural dynamics provides safety leaders with valuable insights for effective OHS management.

Attitude & Behavior in the Workplace: How Does Tightness/Looseness of Culture Apply?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you find the overall morale of your work team to be positive or negative?

How do you navigate it?

And have you ever considered whether the tightness/looseness in your company culture or societal culture might impact these attitudes?

In recent weeks, we’ve talked about tightness and looseness in culture and how this can affect innovation.

Today, we’ll be looking at another study examining tightness/looseness in the workplace to see how it can benefit morale, management policies, and behaviors.

The Study

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the impact of perceived cultural tightness at the work unit level on individual-level outcomes, both positive and negative.

This understanding can be used to enhance management policies.

The research delves into the influence of perceived T-L culture at the work unit level on various individual-level factors, including stress, intention to leave, organizational deviance, job satisfaction, effort investment, and organizational commitment. 

Utilizing cross-sectional data gathered from 417 participants across 57 preexisting work units in diverse Italian organizations, participants were presented with 10 statements that they were asked to agree/disagree with.

These statements include:

  • In my work unit, there are many social norms that must be strictly followed
  • In my work unit, if someone acts in an inappropriate way, others will strongly disapprove
  • In my work unit, there are clear and well-defined rules that must be respected
  • In my work unit, it is not allowed to break the existing norms

The results from multilevel analysis indicate a significant and positive association between perceived cultural tightness at the unit level and individual-level job satisfaction, effort investment, and organizational commitment. 

Conversely, this perceived tightness is significantly and negatively linked to individual-level stress, intention to leave, and organizational deviance. 

These findings imply that fostering a culture of tightness within organizations can positively shape employee attitudes and behaviors.

Confirming the researchers’ hypotheses, the results revealed that perceived cultural tightness at the unit level exhibited a positive association with job satisfaction, effort investment, and organizational commitment. 

Conversely, it displayed a negative association with perceived stress, turnover intentions, and organizational deviance.

Interpreting the Results

Based on the research, this study found that fostering a tight culture could be beneficial for leaders to cultivate positive attitudes within work units. 

However, the suitability of a tight culture depends on individual characteristics and cultural diversity within work units, necessitating attention from HR managers and leaders. 

Achieving a “person-group fit,” where the T-L culture aligns with employees’ mindset and individual characteristics, could promote positive attitudes and behaviors.

Interestingly, in loose societies, organizations may witness more positive workplace attitudes within loose culture work units. 

However, the study did not find significant curvilinear effects, suggesting a need for further investigation, especially in creative, design, or high-tech settings.

Future

The study suggests examining creativity at work, especially given prior results on cultural T-L and creativity.

Exploring moderators of the relationship between tight culture and creativity, such as regulatory focus theory, could provide valuable insights. 

Future research should extend the examination of these effects to the organizational level, considering that work unit culture is influenced by the larger organizational and national culture. 

Investigating interactions between the T-L culture of the country and that of the organization or work unit in promoting workplace outcomes is recommended. 

Overall, these findings contribute to a deeper understanding of T-L effects in real working environments.

Diversity is an Asset: How Tightness/Looseness of Culture Impacts Innovation

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you feel more creative when you are given rules to follow or no rules at all?

Does freedom inspire or limit you?

Today, we’ll delve into a study regarding the degree of tightness and looseness in cultures and how that impacts innovation.

But first, let’s identify what tightness/looseness in culture means.

Defining Tightness/Looseness

As you may have guessed, the “tightness” or “looseness” of a culture is related to its hierarchical structures and social norms.

Witkin and Berry define it as the

“degree of hierarchical structure among sociocultural elements in a society”

While Gelfand, Nishii, & Raver define it as

“the strength of social norms and degree of sanctioning within societies.”

In other words, loose cultures allow flexible and informal social norms, while tight cultures maintain order, coordination, and control. 

Why is Impact Innovation?

For decades, scholars in management and economics have examined the connections between innovativeness and economic performance, often concentrating on conventional “hard factors” such as research and development investments or educational initiatives. 

However, in an era of globalization where cultural dynamics play an increasingly crucial role, the impact of cultural characteristics on innovativeness has been relatively overlooked. 

In this study, researchers employ various econometric models to examine the associations between cultural tightness and looseness and national innovativeness.

The Study

In line with the theoretical framework, researchers used the Global Innovation Index and the rank cultural tightness–looseness combination index.

They identified a significant positive association between cultural looseness, as measured by the Global Innovation Index (Uz (2015a)), and national innovativeness. 

However, this correlation did not hold when using data provided by Gelfand et al. (2011a). 

Researchers concluded that the higher number of surveyed countries, larger sample sizes, and a focus on specific tolerance in Uz’s (2015a) study provide a more comprehensive and accurate representation of cultural tightness-looseness, enhancing the reliability of estimation models.

Diversity is an Asset

The study’s interpretation of the results reveals a significant positive connection between innovativeness and cultural looseness when tightness-looseness is measured as a spread of norms. 

This suggests that societal pluralism and diversity of opinions contribute to innovativeness. 

However, cultural looseness does not equate to high individual tolerance in general; rather, it signifies the endurance of varying degrees of specific tolerance of controversial issues within an open society.

These findings align with studies at different levels, indicating that diversity, when managed constructively, serves as an asset for innovativeness rather than an obstacle. 

This study emphasizes the importance of balancing diversity with participatory safety to enhance team identity and foster creativity. 

The cultural values of a society, as reflected in its approach to innovation, play a crucial role in shaping its economic and creative landscape. 

Recognizing the paradoxical nature of cultural looseness—simultaneously allowing individual freedom and embracing culture-specific norms—can provide valuable insights into fostering societal innovativeness.