Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33524310›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Planetary health2021

The relationship between cultural tightness-looseness and COVID-19 cases and deaths: a global analysis.

Michele J Gelfand, Joshua Conrad Jackson, Xinyue Pan, Dana Nau, Dylan Pieper, Emmy Denison, Munqith Dagher, Paul A M Van Lange, Chi-Yue Chiu, Mo Wang

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Planetary health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 155 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
155citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

155 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of gratitude interventions on well-being across cultures.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Interpersonal value regulates infection-risky social contact across 61 societies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  6. From Reopening to the New Normal: The Impact of COVID-19 on Intergroup Conflict Behaviour.International journal of psychology : Journal international de psychologie · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

95 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Michele J GelfandDepartment of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. Electronic address: mgelfand@umd.edu.
Joshua Conrad JacksonDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Xinyue PanDepartment of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Dana NauDepartment of Computer Science and Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Dylan PieperDepartment of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Emmy DenisonDepartment of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Munqith DagherAl Mustakilla Research Group, Amman, Jordan.
Paul A M Van LangeDepartment of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Institute for Brain and Behavior, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Chi-Yue ChiuFaculty of Social Science, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, China.
Mo WangWarrington College of Business, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Electronic address: mo.wang@warrington.ufl.edu.

Funding

Office of Naval Research N000141912407
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is a global health crisis, yet certain countries have had far more success in limiting COVID-19 cases and deaths. We suggest that collective threats require a tremendous amount of coordination, and that strict adherence to social norms is a key mechanism that enables groups to do so. Here we examine how the strength of social norms-or cultural tightness-looseness-was associated with countries' success in limiting cases and deaths by October, 2020. We expected that tight cultures, which have strict norms and punishments for deviance, would have fewer cases and deaths per million as compared with loose cultures, which have weaker norms and are more permissive.

methodsWe estimated the relationship between cultural tightness-looseness and COVID-19 case and mortality rates as of Oct 16, 2020, using ordinary least squares regression. We fit a series of stepwise models to capture whether cultural tightness-looseness explained variation in case and death rates controlling for under-reporting, demographics, geopolitical factors, other cultural dimensions, and climate.

findingsThe results indicated that, compared with nations with high levels of cultural tightness, nations with high levels of cultural looseness are estimated to have had 4·99 times the number of cases (7132 per million vs 1428 per million, respectively) and 8·71 times the number of deaths (183 per million vs 21 per million, respectively), taking into account a number of controls. A formal evolutionary game theoretic model suggested that tight groups cooperate much faster under threat and have higher survival rates than loose groups. The results suggest that tightening social norms might confer an evolutionary advantage in times of collective threat.

interpretationNations that are tight and abide by strict norms have had more success than those that are looser as of the October, 2020. New interventions are needed to help countries tighten social norms as they continue to battle COVID-19 and other collective threats.

fundingOffice of Naval Research, US Navy.

Indexed as

Social NormsCOVID-19Humans

Identifiers

PMID33524310
PMCPMC7946418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.