Effects of Cultural Tightness and Collectivism on Self-Concept and Causal Attributions

Carpenter, Sandra

doi:10.1177/106939710003400103

Cited by 146 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We collected a wide range of variables from different databases (e.g., DDB Lifestyle Survey, US Census Bureau, Gallup, General Social Survey) to test the validity of the index (see Table S5 for specific variables and associated databases). Consistent with previous research (15,20), the index was only moderately correlated with collectivism, or the degree to which individuals are interdependent with their families and in-groups [r (49) = 0.37, P < 0.01]. Because Hawaii was a statistical outlier relative to all other states on Vandello and Cohen's (3) collectivism index, we excluded it from the analysis; when Hawaii is included in the analysis, the correlation between tightness and collectivism is r (50) = 0.23, P = 0.11.…”

Section: Significancesupporting

confidence: 82%

Tightness–looseness across the 50 united states

Harrington

Gelfand

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

476

586

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research demonstrates wide variation in tightness-looseness (the strength of punishment and degree of latitude/permissiveness) at the state level in the United States, as well as its association with a variety of ecological and historical factors, psychological characteristics, and state-level outcomes. Consistent with theory and past research, ecological and man-made threats-such as a higher incidence of natural disasters, greater disease prevalence, fewer natural resources, and greater degree of external threat-predicted increased tightness at the state level. Tightness is also associated with higher trait conscientiousness and lower trait openness, as well as a wide array of outcomes at the state level. Compared with loose states, tight states have higher levels of social stability, including lowered drug and alcohol use, lower rates of homelessness, and lower social disorganization. However, tight states also have higher incarceration rates, greater discrimination and inequality, lower creativity, and lower happiness relative to loose states. In all, tightness-looseness provides a parsimonious explanation of the wide variation we see across the 50 states of the United States of America.culture | norms | ecology | index

show abstract

Section: Significancesupporting

confidence: 82%

Tightness–looseness across the 50 united states

Harrington

Gelfand

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

476

586

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Carpenter (2000) supported this supposition in a study of ethnographies of 16 traditional societies in the Human Relations Area Files. She found that individualism-collectivism and tightness-looseness were only moderately correlated (r=.44).…”

Section: Tightness-looseness Definedmentioning

confidence: 82%

On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness.

Gelfand

Nishii

Raver

2006

Journal of Applied Psychology

812

910

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-cultural research is dominated by the use of values despite their mixed empirical support and their limited theoretical scope. This article expands the dominant paradigm in cross-cultural research by developing a theory of cultural tightness-looseness (the strength of social norms and the degree of sanctioning within societies) and by advancing a multilevel research agenda for future research. Through an exploration of the top-down, bottom-up, and moderating impact that cultural tightness-looseness has on individuals and organizations, as well as on variance at multiple levels of analysis, the theory provides a new and complementary perspective to the values approach.

show abstract

“…Although, prima facie, the concept of tightness-looseness appears parallel to the cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism, the two are distinct (Carpenter, 2000;Triandis, 1989). Individualism-collectivism is concerned with the emphasis placed by societies on strong in-group ties versus being independently oriented -it does not refer to how much tolerance there is for deviance from norms.…”

Section: Culture and Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Charismatic and Transformational Leadership Styles: A Cross-Cultural Perspective

Mittal¹

2015

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Culture's influence on leadership processes is generally accepted. However, differing leadership styles will be differentially impacted by the cultural context in which they seek to operate. The current paper examines two seemingly similar but distinct leadership styles, charismatic leadership and transformational leadership in the context of cultural dimensions of individualism-collectivism and tightness-looseness. A conceptual framework is presented to describe the interaction of these leadership styles and cultural dimensions. It is argued that charismatic leadership would be the preferred leadership style in individualistic and loose societies, whereas transformational leadership style would be more acceptable in collectivistic and tight societies. These insights have practical implications for design of leadership intervention programs for businesses spanning more than one culture.

show abstract

Effects of Cultural Tightness and Collectivism on Self-Concept and Causal Attributions

Cited by 146 publications

References 28 publications

Tightness–looseness across the 50 united states

Tightness–looseness across the 50 united states

On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness.

Charismatic and Transformational Leadership Styles: A Cross-Cultural Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About