New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Threats Drive Cultural Norms

A study of people from 33 nations led researchers to conclude that a given people's history of threats leads to cultural norms. Cynthia Graber reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Do you come from a country that has, let’s say, a history of environmental disasters or conquests? Then your culture is probably “tight”—it has strong social norms and doesn’t tolerate much deviance from those norms. And your society is probably autocratic with few political and civil liberties. Or, a happier history probably led to your culture being “loose,” with more rights and openness. So says a study in the journal Science. [Michele Gelfand et al., "Differences Between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation Study"]

Researchers surveyed almost 7,000 people in 33 countries. They asked respondents to scale the truth of statements such, “In this country, if someone acts in an inappropriate way, others will strongly disapprove.” Participants also rated the acceptability of activities such as kissing in public.

Then the researchers correlated those answers with current and historical data about ecological and societal threats, population density, even the prevalence of diseases. They found that the more stresses a society has faced—whether ecological or human-made—the more likely that culture is to be a tight one.

The scientists say that its threat history could explain why a given culture finds others to be alien or immoral. And that appreciating the roots of cultural differences could improve international communication.

—Cynthia Graber

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe