Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42531259›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Cultural tightness and scientific capacity: A cross-national study of their synergistic and conflicting roles in COVID-19 pandemic outcomes.

Chris William Callaghan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Chris William CallaghanSchool of Economics, Finance and Law, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6554-8363

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite their advanced scientific capacity, many nations experienced high COVID-19 cases and deaths during the pre-vaccine phase of the pandemic. In contrast, some countries with tighter cultural norms, where social behaviour is more strongly regulated, appear to have controlled the spread of the virus more effectively. This creates a paradox: the same norm strength that may support compliance with public-health measures may also be less conducive to ideation, creativity, and scientific output. While prior research has associated cultural tightness with lower COVID-19 cases and deaths, its relationship with scientific capacity remains underexplored. This study examines associations between scientific capacity, cultural tightness, and COVID-19 outcomes using cross-national data. Findings show that scientific capacity has no robust direct protective association with pre-vaccine COVID-19 cases or deaths once cultural tightness and structural covariates are included. In contrast, Gelfand's measure of cultural tightness is consistently associated with lower cases and deaths. These findings suggest that scientific knowledge alone does not automatically translate into population-level protection, and that norm strength, behavioural coordination, and knowledge-to-action capacity may be important conditions of pandemic resilience.

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansPandemicsPublic HealthSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID42531259
PMCPMC13422883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.