... tight nations are more likely to have autocratic governing systems that suppress dissent, to have media 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.A team lead by psychologist Michele Gelfand (University of Maryland) surveyed people from 30 countries to assess how tight each country was. They were asked to rate statements like:
- “There are many social norms that people are supposed to abide by in this country”
- “In this country, if someone acts in an inappropriate way, others will strongly disapprove,”
- “People in this country almost always comply with social norms.”
They had more autocratic governments and less press freedom, fewer political rights and civil liberties, more police and less crime (at least, less reported crime).
They also (you won't be surprised to hear if you read this blog regularly), are more religious, with more people attending religious services and (to a lesser extent) more people rating god as being important in their lives.
At least, that's what they found using religion survey data from 1995. I repeated it but using data from 2005 - and as you can see from the figure there's no correlation at all. Now, part of that might be because I only had data for half the countries. But it may indicate that the relationship is unstable.
Still, it's an interesting finding (assuming it's correct!). The authors argue that tight nations are religious because religion reinforces "adherence to moral conventions and rules that can facilitate social order and coordination".
That certainly gives an alternative perspective to the conventional rubric that people under threat turn to religion to help to alleviate their anxiety!
Gelfand MJ, Raver JL, Nishii L, & others (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: a 33-nation study. Science (New York, N.Y.), 332 (6033), 1100-4 PMID: 21617077
This article by Tom Rees was first published on Epiphenom. It is licensed under Creative Commons.

Tom -- was "religiosity" measured only in terms of church attendance? This is a notoriously bad way of measuring peoples' commitment to the supernatural.
ReplyDeleteNice piece and thanks for the heads up -- I was thinking of Germany while reading it, which may be dated in ways, but apropos in others.
Japan definitely, but supernaturalism in Japan is a whole different thing.
They measured it in two ways - percentage of people who attend monthly or emore, and average rating of hor important God is in their lives. The attendance measure showed a stronger relationship - which their theory would predict as getting people to conform socially is part and parcel of 'tight' societies.
ReplyDeleteUnder duress conditions, a problem emerges: how to select a proper response to the situaton.
ReplyDeleteIf a priest come by and suggests a strategy (usually obey your god given ruler and make some sacrifices), this can both favor social coordination and anxiety relief.
I do not see any contradiction here.
But here my preferite part:
Tighter societies had higher population density, fewer natural resources, lower food supply, more pollution, more natural disasters, more disease, and more threatening neighbours.
Are we talking about causes or consequences ?
Furthermore: lower resources ? Since when Saudi Arabia topped Democracy Index ? (160th over 167 countries)