The purpose of the present study is to provide insight on the debate concerning how best to organize societies: with more freedom (looseness) or with more constraint (tightness). In a comparison of 32 nations, Harrington, Boski, and Gelfand examine the relationship between tightness/looseness and three dimensions of societal well-being: psychosocial, health, and political/economic outcomes. Findings indicate that excessive constraint and/or freedom contribute to poorer psychosocial, health, and economic/political outcomes, as well as overall national-level well-being. These results suggest that a balance of freedom and constraint is associated with optimal societal well-being.

Authors contend that many of the differences across the 50 states can be attributed to the degree to which social entities are "tight" (have many strongly enforced rules and little tolerance to deviance) or "loose" (have few strongly enforced rules and greater tolerance for deviance). Significant correlations were found between many state characteristics and tightness-looseness.

In this paper, the author argues that moral systems evolved as a way to enforce cooperation between people outside of kin groups. Because cooperation within kin groups has apparent adaptive advantages, it is argued that these moral systems will be less important for societies with tight kin groups and conversely more important for those with looser kin groups. In order to test this theory, the author creates an original model that incorporates both ethnographic data and data from contemporary countries. Thus, it is postulated that historical kinship practices will influence contemporary systems. The paper concludes that there is sufficient historical evidence for this theory.

This article builds on previous cross-country and cross-state research into Tightness-Looseness (TL) theory, which proposes relationships between the incidence of ecological threat and cultural tightness, as well as tightness’ downstream effects on belief in a moralizing high god, inter-group contact and authoritarian leadership. To evaluate the generalizability of TL theory beyond complex cultures, the authors test these relationships among 86 nonindustrial societies from the ethnographic record. A structural equation model is presented of the results for nonindustrial societies; it is generally in accord with previous findings from more complex societies. Because the nonindustrial sample is more variable, they also look at relationships between societal complexity and kinship heterogeneity, aspects that vary in nonindustrial societies.

This article aims to demonstrate the effects of national culture on countries’ COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates when controlling for GDP and population age over 65. The author measured various cultural dimensions derived from GLOBE and tested it against the country’s COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates. The author found a significant relationship between culture and COVID-19 outcomes suggesting that culture, beyond only GDP and age, may predict COVID-19 outcomes.

This article explores differences between "tight" cultures ("have many strong norms and low tolerance of deviant behavior") and "loose" cultures ("have weak social norms and high tolerance of deviant behavior"). The tightness-looseness measure manifests in a myriad of macro and micro phenomena, from governance and religiosity to individual psychological processes. This study investigates these phenomena in modern nations rather than traditional societies. Potential ecological, historical, and socio-political predictors of tightness-looseness are also examined.

This paper proposes that the socio-cultural values of countries may be associated with increased mortality due to COVID-19. Using results from the World Values survey, the author assessed which values had the strongest association with a change in COVID-19 mortality in datasets consisting of all countries, upper-middle and high income economies, upper-middle income economies, high income economies, and advanced economies. The author also sought to determine whether the WVS values that were associated with COVID-19 mortality were also associated with general life expectancy. The results showed that COVID-19 mortality was increased in countries that placed a higher value on freedom of speech, political participation, religion, technocracy, post-materialism, social tolerance, law and order, and acceptance of authority. On the other hand, mortality was decreased in countries with high trust in major companies and institutions and that endorsed maintenance of order as a goal for a country. The author also found that values related to COVID-19 mortality did not predict general health outcomes, and that some values that predicted increased COVID-19 mortality actually predicted decreased mortality from other outcomes.

This research examines how national culture influences the speed of COVID-19 spread in different countries. Three studies were conducted, and five national cultural dimensions were found to be significantly related to the speed of COVID-19 spread in the initial stages of the pandemic. These dimensions are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, humane orientation, in-group collectivism, and cultural tightness. The research found that COVID-19 spreads faster in countries with small power distance and strong uncertainty avoidance, low humane orientation and high in-group collectivism, and slower in countries with high cultural tightness.

The researchers conducted four studies using multiple methods. All of the studies examined the ways in which conflict may shape religion, and, more specifically whether conflict relates to an increased belief in a punitive god. Study 2 compared individuals from four countries; study 4 used worldwide data. We don't report results from the American sample (study 1) or from study 3. As a result of all four studies, the researchers suggest that since beliefs in punitive gods are better able to preserve order and enforce traditions, they may be particularly attractive during times of conflict.

Researchers used various hypotheses to determine if cross-country differences in trust and cooperation would predict prosocial COVID-19 responses and policies. Using individual surveys from 34,526 participants from 41 countries, there were no significant associations between trust and cooperation and prosocial behavior, motivation, regulation, or stringency of policies. While the researchers did find significant variation among cross-country individuals, these results were unable to predict country-level prosocial responses.