ArticlePDF Available

The mutual constitution of culture and psyche: The bidirectional relationship between individuals' perceived control and cultural tightness-looseness

October 2022
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

DOI:10.1037/pspa0000327

Authors:

Krishna Savani

Nanyang Technological University

Fangzhou Liu

Huazhong University of Science and Technology

Kenneth Tai

Singapore Management University

Show all 5 authorsHide

According to the theory of mutual constitution of culture and psyche, just as culture shapes people, individuals' psychological states can influence culture. We build on compensatory control theory, which suggests that low personal control can lead people to prefer societal systems that impose order, to examine the mutual constitution of personal control and cultural tightness. Specifically, we tested whether individuals' lack of personal control increases their preference for tighter cultures as a means of restoring order and predictability, and whether tighter cultures in turn reduce people's feelings of personal control. Seven studies (five preregistered) with participants from the United States, Singapore, and China examine this cycle of mutual constitution. Specifically, documenting the correlational link between person and culture, we found that Americans lower on personal control preferred to live in tighter states (Study 1). Chinese employees lower on personal control also desired more structure and preferred a tighter organizational culture (Study 2). Employing an experimental causal chain design, Studies 3-5 provided causal evidence for our claim that lack of control increases desire for tighter cultures via the need for structure. Finally, tracing the link back from culture to person, Studies 6a and 6b found that whereas tighter cultures decreased perceptions of individual personal control, they increased people's sense of collective control. Overall, the findings document the process of mutual constitution of culture and psyche: lack of personal control leads people to seek more structured, tighter cultures, and that tighter cultures, in turn, decrease people's sense of personal control but increase their sense of collective control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Content uploaded by Kenneth Tai

Content may be subject to copyright.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

The Mutual Constitution of Culture and Psyche: The Bidirectional

Relationship Between Individuals’ Perceived Control and Cultural

Tightness–Looseness

Anyi Ma, Krishna Savani, Fangzhou Liu, Kenneth Tai, and Aaron C. Kay

Online First Publication, October 31, 2022. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000327

CITATION

Ma, A., Savani, K., Liu, F., Tai, K., & Kay, A. C. (2022, October 31). The Mutual Constitution of Culture and Psyche: The

Bidirectional Relationship Between Individuals’ Perceived Control and Cultural Tightness–Looseness. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000327

The Mutual Constitution of Culture and Psyche: The Bidirectional

Relationship Between Individuals’Perceived Control and

Cultural Tightness–Looseness

Anyi Ma

, Krishna Savani

, Fangzhou Liu

, Kenneth Tai

, and Aaron C. Kay

Management Area, Freeman School of Business, Tulane University

Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology

Department of Organisational Behaviour and Human Resources, Lee Kong Chian School of Business,

Singapore Management University

Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Management and Organization,

Fuqua School of Business, Duke University

According to the theory of mutual constitution of culture and psyche, just as culture shapes people,

individuals’psychological states can inﬂuence culture. We build on compensatory control theory, which

suggests that low personal control can lead people to prefer societal systems that impose order, to examine

the mutual constitution of personal control and cultural tightness. Speciﬁcally, we tested whether

individuals’lack of personal control increases their preference for tighter cultures as a means of restoring

order and predictability, and whether tighter cultures in turn reduce people’s feelings of personal control.

Seven studies (ﬁve preregistered) with participants from the United States, Singapore, and China examine

this cycle of mutual constitution. Speciﬁcally, documenting the correlational link between person and

culture, we found that Americans lower on personal control preferred to live in tighter states (Study 1).

Chinese employees lower on personal control also desired more structure and preferred a tighter

organizational culture (Study 2). Employing an experimental causal chain design, Studies 3–5 provided

causal evidence for our claim that lack of control increases desire for tighter cultures via the need for

structure. Finally, tracing the link back from culture to person, Studies 6a and 6b found that whereas tighter

cultures decreased perceptions of individual personal control, they increased people’s sense of collective

control. Overall, the ﬁndings document the process of mutual constitution of culture and psyche: lack of

personal control leads people to seek more structured, tighter cultures, and that tighter cultures, in turn,

decrease people’s sense of personal control but increase their sense of collective control.

Keywords: perceived control, tightness–looseness, need for structure, mutual constitution, culture

Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000327.supp

The theory of mutual constitution of culture and psychology

argues that whereas culture shapes individuals’cognition, emotion,

motivation, and behavior, individuals’psychological states can also

shape cultural patterns and characteristics (Adams & Markus, 2004;

Fiske et al., 1998). Although extensive research has examined the

ﬁrst half of this proposition (Cohen & Kitayama, 2007), less

research has empirically investigated the inﬂuence of individuals’

psychological states on broader cultural patterns (for notable ex-

ceptions, see Kashima, 2000;Kitayama et al., 1997;Morling &

Lamoreaux, 2008;Salter et al., 2018). More importantly, virtually

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Editor’s Note. Yoshi Kashima served as the handling editor for this

article.—SK

Anyi Ma https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1220-6949

Krishna Savani https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6934-1917

Fangzhou Liu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4133-1151

Kenneth Tai https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7817-3599

Aaron C. Kay https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7895-0987

The authors thank Dayana Bulchand, Sylvia Chin, Ee-Hwee Lau, and

Andrea Low, as well as for invaluable research assistance. Parts of this

research were conducted while Krishna Savani was at Nanyang Technologi-

cal University.

Anyi Ma played lead role in conceptualization, data curation, formal

analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration and writing of

original draft and equal role in writing of review and editing. Krishna Savani

played lead role in resources, supervision and validation, supporting role in

conceptualization, investigation and methodology and equal role in writing

of review and editing. Fangzhou Liu played supporting role in investigation.

Kenneth Tai played supporting role in investigation. Aaron C. Kay played

supporting role in conceptualization, investigation, methodology and super-

vision and equal role in writing of review and editing.

All survey materials, data, and analysis code are available at https://

osf.io/f8wzh.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Krishna

Savani, Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business,

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Li Ka Shing Tower M857, Hung

Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong or Fangzhou Liu, School of Management,

Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1037 Luoyu Road,

Hongshan, Wuhan 430074, China. Email: krishna.savani@polyu.edu.hk

or liufangzhou@hust.edu.cn

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology:

Attitudes and Social Cognition

ISSN: 0022-3514 https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000327

no research to our knowledge has examined the full cycle of the

mutual constitution of culture and psyche in the same article.

The ﬁrst phase of research in cross-cultural psychology focused on

a key dimension across which cultures vary—independent versus

interdependent self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) and indi-

vidualism versus collectivism (Triandis, 1989). Another dimension

that has attracted much recent attention is tightness–looseness

(Gelfand et al., 2011;Triandis, 1996). Whereas tight societies

(e.g., Pakistan, Singapore) have strong norms and a low tolerance

for deviance from the norm, loose societies (e.g., Ukraine, USA) have

weak norms and are more likely to tolerate norm-violating behaviors

(Gelfand et al., 2011). An extensive program of research by Gelfand

et al. has demonstrated that cross-cultural tightness predicts a range

of psychological outcomes, such as prevention focus, self-regulation

strength, self-monitoring (Gelfand et al., 2011), preferences for

autonomous leadership (Aktas et al., 2016), propensity to engage

in convergent thinking (Chua et al., 2015), religious beliefs and

practices (Caluori et al., 2020;Jackson, Caluori, Abrams, et al., 2021,

Jackson, Caluori, Gray, et al., 2021), and strength of electroencepha-

lography (EEG) reactions to norm violations (Mu et al., 2015).

Differences in cultural tightness–looseness are theorized to be

caused by the presence of external threats (e.g., war, natural disasters,

pathogen load, or “top-down”processes) and reinforced by variation

in psychological tendencies within cultures (i.e., “bottom-up,”

processes; Gelfand et al., 2011;Triandis, 1972). However, although

the role of such “bottom-up”processes in which individual-level

characteristics shape cultural differences has been theorized, they

have not yet been examined empirically.

To address this gap,we draw on compensatory control theory (Kay

et al., 2008;Landau et al., 2015) to investigate a novel antecedent of

tight cultures: individuals’perceptions of personal control. Speciﬁ-

cally, we seek to uncover the bidirectional relationship between the

psyche and culture in the domain of personal control and cultural

tightness. We test whether individuals’lack of personal control can

increase their preference for tighter cultures as a means of restoring

order and predictability, and whether being in a tight culture can then

further constrain an individual’s personal control. We also test if this

bidirectional relationship also comes with some psychological ben-

eﬁts, as people in tighter cultures may experience an increased sense

of collective control. Interdependent collective action can often help

groups achieve goals that individuals may not otherwise be capable of

attaining alone, and due to the increased social coordination afforded

by tight cultural groups, we test whether tight cultures can bolster

people’s sense of collective control (Bandura, 2000;Fritsche et al.,

2008,2013;Greenaway et al., 2015).

Taken together, these relationships suggest a mutually reinforcing

relationship between personal control and cultural tightness, such

that people experience less personal control and more collective

control as cultures become tighter over time. Our model can thus

provide a theoretical account for the persistence of cultural differ-

ences in personal and collective control and tightness–looseness

over time.

The Cycle of Mutual Constitution and

Cultural Tightness–Looseness

Thus far, one view of culture is that it is a relatively independent,

stable system of shared meanings that structures human experience

(for a review, see Kashima, 2000). In contrast, inﬂuenced by

sociologists and anthropologists such as Bourdieu (1977) and

Giddens (1979), another school of thought argues that macrolevel

cultural characteristics and structure inﬂuence people’s cognitive,

emotional, motivational, and behavioral functioning, which in turn

produce and reproduce these sociocultural environments (Adams

& Markus, 2001;Fiske et al., 1998;Kashima, 2000). This idea is

described in Shweder’s (1991, p. 24) memorable phrase: “culture

and psyche make each other up.”

Several lines of research have demonstrated this mutual consti-

tution process by documenting the interrelationship between psy-

chological tendencies and cultural products (Morling & Lamoreaux,

2008), interpersonal situations (Kitayama et al., 1997;Morling

et al., 2002;Savani et al., 2011), and shared narratives (Kashima,

2000,2001;Kashima et al., 2018,2019;Kashima & Kashima,

1998). Recent research has documented the role of mutual consti-

tution processes in perpetuating racial disparities (Salter et al.,

2018). For example, White Americans prefer relatively less critical

representations of Black history from majority White schools over

more critical representations of Black history from predominantly

Black schools. This suggests that White Americans select certain

historical narratives over others, thereby perpetuating racial inequal-

ity (Salter & Adams, 2016).

Despite the above exceptions, most research in cultural psychology

separates the mutual constitution process. Researchers tend to focus

either on how psychological tendencies vary across cultures, thereby

examining the inﬂuence of culture on the psyche (e.g., Nisbett et al.,

2001), or on how products vary by culture, thereby examining

the inﬂuence of the psyche on culture (Morling & Lamoreaux,

2008), but rarely examining both processes simultaneously.

Cultural Tightness

In the current research, we sought to investigate the bidirectional

relationship between culture and psyche in a new domain—perceived

control and cultural tightness. The concept of tight cultures was ﬁrst

developed in the 60s in a study of traditional societies (Pelto, 1968).

Some societies (e.g., the Azande of Central Africa) possessed strong

norms and imposed severe punishments on those who deviated from

norms. In contrast, other societies (e.g., the Kung Bushman of South

Africa) had weak norms and allowed people to violate norms without

punishment. Since then, this construct has also been applied to

modern societies (Gelfand et al., 2006,2011;Triandis, 1989).

Researchers have suggested that tighter cultures evolved to allow

people to effectively overcome societal threats. For example, Pelto

(1968) argued that tightness–looseness originated as an ecological

adaptation to the environment, such as population density and

dependency on uncertain harvests. Triandis (1989) suggested that

geographically isolated cultures (e.g., Japan) tend to be homogenous

and tight; in contrast, cultures that are centrally located (e.g.,

Thailand) are more likely to be exposed to different practices and

behaviors from neighboring locales, and thus tend to be loose so that

they can mitigate the threat of social conﬂict and instability arising

from cultural diversity. The notion that tighter cultures developed as

an adaptative response toward mitigating ecological and historical

threats received empirical support—tighter nations tended to have

higher population density, scarce natural resources, and suffer more

natural disasters (Gelfand et al., 2011).

Scholars have also argued that tightness might also be reinforced

by bottom-up processes through which individuals in a culture can

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2MA, SAVANI, LIU, TAI, AND KAY

shape cultural patterns and practices at the societal level (Gelfand et

al., 2006,2011). For example, people who chronically experience a

sense of uncertainty might prefer cultures with strong norms so that

they can reduce their sense of uncertainty (Aktas et al., 2016).

However, limited research has tested for the existence of such

bottom-up processes. We sought to address this gap by providing

evidence for a bidirectional relationship between personal control at

the individual level and tightness–looseness at the societal level.

Personal Control Shapes Cultural Tightness–Looseness

We ﬁrst consider how the personal control dimension of the

psyche inﬂuences the tightness dimension of culture. To do so, we

draw on compensatory control theory, which was conceived partly

to explain the existence of variations in personal control both within

as well as between cultures, even though control has been posited as

a fundamental human need (Kay et al., 2008;Presson & Benassi,

1996;Seligman, 1975). Recent theoretical innovations in compen-

satory control theory suggest that the search for nonepistemic

structure, or “interpretations of one’s social and physical environ-

ments as simple (vs. complex), clear (discernable; not hidden or

obscure, vague or ambiguous), and consistent (stable as opposed to

erratic; marked by a coherent relation of parts vs. disordered)”

(Landau et al., 2015, p. 694) might be appealing when people lack

control. A lack of personal control increases people’s preference for

various forms of nonspeciﬁc epistemic structure, including social

hierarchy (Friesen et al., 2014), and leads them to perceive con-

nections between unrelated events (Ma et al., 2017;Whitson &

Galinsky, 2008; for other examples, see Landau et al., 2015, for a

review). Thus, consistent with compensatory control theory, we

predict that those with lower personal control would desire greater

structure.

Although most research on compensatory control theory has been

conducted in North American cultural settings, there is reason to

believe that key tenets of the theory generalize across cultures. For

instance, predictions of compensatory control theory have been

validated in the context of the 2008 Malaysian general election (Kay

et al., 2010). Similarly, across countries, lower personal control was

associated with greater conﬁdence in the government (Kay et al.,

2008, Study 3), as well as a greater tendency to seek structure and

endorse simple characterizations of various social groups (i.e., to

stereotype; Ma et al., 2019, Study 1).

Thus far, the theory of cultural tightness–looseness and compen-

satory control theory have been studied in separate literature.

However, we propose that the two theories are related in that the

strength of social norms—a core feature of tight cultures—gives

people a simple and coherent interpretation of the world and thus

could be considered a form of epistemic structure. As strong norms

both guide people’s own behaviors and allow them to predict others’

behaviors, they can provide a signiﬁcant source of order and

predictability in everyday social life (Gelfand et al., 2011). Thus,

we predict that to the degree tight cultures are seen as conferring

order and predictability, when people lack control and desire

structure, they may come to prefer tighter cultures.

Indeed, consistent with our idea, past research has found a

positive association between the need for structure and tightness

at the country level (Gelfand et al., 2011). However, this evidence is

largely correlational in nature, and thus cannot speak to the causal

directionality between need for structure and preference for tight

cultures. We propose that the need for structure is a mediator that

captures the compensatory control process linking low perceived

control to the preference for tighter cultures. Put formally, we

predict that:

Hypothesis 1: People who perceive low personal control prefer

tighter cultures.

Hypothesis 2: People who perceive low personal control have a

higher need for structure.

Hypothesis 3: People who have a higher need for structure

prefer tighter cultures.

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between perceived personal

control and preference for tighter cultures is mediated by a

higher need for structure.

Tightness–Looseness Shapes Personal and

Collective Control

We next consider how tighter cultures might inﬂuence people’s

sense of control. Control theorists have long noted that there are

multiple ways of attaining a sense of control (Rothbaum et al., 1982).

One notable distinction is between personal control and collective

control (Morling & Evered, 2006). Whereas personal control is

deﬁned as whether individuals perceive that they have control

over the means needed to achieve valued goals, collective control

is deﬁned as whether people believe that they can achieve shared

goals via collective action (also referred to as communal mastery

or collective efﬁcacy;Bandura, 1997;Morling & Evered, 2006;

Yamaguchi, 2001). We theorize that tight cultures have divergent

inﬂuences on people’s perceptions of personal and collective control.

We ﬁrst consider how tight cultures inﬂuence personal control.

By deﬁnition, tight cultures limit how individuals can act in various

social situations—individuals’behaviors are circumscribed by prev-

alent norms, and deviations from norms are punished. For example,

Gelfand et al. (2011) found that, in tighter cultures, a narrower range

of behaviors is deemed appropriate in a wide range of social

situations. The constraints on individual behavior associated with

tight cultures can reduce people’s sense of personal control, which

would suggest a cyclical bidirectional relationship—lower personal

control increases people’s preference for tighter cultures, and tighter

cultures reduce people’s sense of personal control. Therefore, we

predict that:

Hypothesis 5: People in tighter cultures perceive lower personal

control.

Further, we predict that, despite impeding personal control, tight

cultures will increase individuals’sense of collective control.

Greater compliance with norms in tight cultures can help groups

achieve goals that individuals may not otherwise be capable of

attaining alone (Greenaway et al., 2015). Given the increased social

coordination afforded by tight cultures (Gelfand et al., 2011), we test

if people in tight cultures might feel that they are capable of

achieving collective goals. Indeed, according to the group-based

control model, groups are an important source of control as they can

“pursue the goals and uphold the values they share with their

members”(Fritsche et al., 2008, p. 598; Triandis, 1989). Consistent

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PERSONAL CONTROL AND CULTURAL TIGHTNESS–LOOSENESS 3

with this idea, tighter cultures were better able to control the

COVID-19 pandemic as they could more easily regulate indivi-

duals’actions to achieve the collective goal of containing the virus

(Gelfand et al., 2021). This positive relationship between tight

cultures and collective control can perhaps balance the negative

bidirectional relationship between tighter cultures and low personal

control.

Hypothesis 6: People in tighter cultures perceive higher collec-

tive control.

In sum, we propose a full cycle of mutual constitution of the

psyche and culture in the current research. We suggest that societal-

level differences in tightness–looseness and individual-level per-

ceptions of personal control and collective control can be mutually

reinforced. Our model suggests an unstable equilibrium in which

people in tighter cultures perceive less individual personal control

and greater collective control over time. An instigating instance of

lowered personal control (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic) can increase

people’s desire for structure and, consequently, their preference for a

tighter culture. Being in a tighter culture then reduces people’s sense

of personal control but increases their sense of collective control

over time (Figure 1).

Overview of Studies

To test our hypotheses, we conducted an archival study and ﬁve

correlational and experimental studies across multiple cultures.

Studies 1–3 examine the correlational (Studies 1 and 2) and causal

(Study 3) relation between personal control on preferences for

tight cultures. Study 1 investigated whether individuals with lower

levels of perceived control prefer to live in tighter U.S. states

(Hypothesis 1). Employing a two-wave longitudinal survey design

with employees in China, Study 2 examined whether employees

who experience lower levels of perceived control have a greater

need for structure and, consequently, prefer tighter cultures

(Hypotheses 1–4). Study 3 tested whether experimentally induced

feelings of low personal controlled Singaporeans to punish norm

violators in an economic game (Hypothesis 1). Together with

Study 3, Studies 4 and 5 employed an experimental chain design

and tested the causal relationships between personal control, need

for structure, and preference for a tighter culture. Speciﬁcally,

Study 4 tested whether experimentally manipulated feelings of low

perceived control increase people’s need for structure (Hypothesis

2); Study 5 examined whether experimentally induced need for

structure increases people’s preference for tighter organizational

cultures (Hypothesis 3). Finally, Studies 6a and 6b manipulated

cultural tightness and examined whether being in a tighter culture

reduces people’s perceptions of personal control but increases

their feelings of collective control (Hypotheses 5 & 6).

Across all studies, we report all participants, measures, and

conditions. The present research was approved by the institutional

review board at the authors’universities. All scale items used in

the present research can be found in the Supplemental Materials.

All survey materials, data, and analysis code are available at

https://osf.io/f8wzh. This study was approved by Tulane Univer-

sity’s institutional review board protocol IRB-2020-1432, titled

“Attitudes and Beliefs in the Workplace,”and Nanyang Techno-

logical University’s institutional review board protocol IRB-

2015-07-018-06, titled “The Role of Implicit Processes in Cultural

Learning.”

Study 1: Preferences to Live in Tighter or

Looser U.S. States

Study 1 tested Hypothesis 1, whether people who perceive low

personal control prefer tighter cultures. We assessed preference for

tighter cultures indirectly based on which U.S. state participants

wanted to move to. Speciﬁcally, we predicted that people with lower

perceived control would prefer to live in culturally tighter states.

Method

Participants

We analyzed individuals who completed Wave 2 (N=3,422;

1,863 women, 1,559 men, M

age

=55.66, SD =12.26) and Wave 3

(N=2,295; 1,244 women, 1,051 men; M

age

=63.96, SD =11.02) of

a three-wave Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) longitudinal

survey (Brim et al., 2004). We did not use the Wave 1 data because it

did not contain the dependent variable of interest.

Procedure

Perceived personal control was assessed using an established

12-item scale (Ettner & Grzywacz, 2001;Lachman & Weaver,

1998a,1998b, e.g., “There is little I can do to change the important

things in my life,”α

Wave 2

=.87, α

Wave 3

=.87). These items were

measured on a 7-point scale (1 =agree strongly,7=disagree

strongly). We coded participants’responses so that higher

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Figure 1

Theorized Model and Overview of Studies

Note. See the online article for the color version of this ﬁgure.

Our prediction that tighter cultures would decrease personal control but

increase collective control is consistent with the literature on secondary

control, which has found that people accept a loss of personal control if they

can gain a sense of secondary control through third parties (Rothbaum et al.,

1982). For example, although people forfeit their sense of personal control

when they submit to powerful others, doing so can also increase their sense of

vicarious secondary control through the powerful agent (Rothbaum et al.,

1982).

4MA, SAVANI, LIU, TAI, AND KAY

scores indicated greater personal control (M

wave 2

=5.56, 95%

CI [5.52, 5.59], SD

wave 2

=.98, M

wave 3

=5.48, 95% CI [5.44, 5.53],

wave 3

=1.00).

Although the survey did not collect information about which state

each participant was currently living in, participants in both waves

were asked, “Thinking back over all the places you’ve lived during

your lifetime, including where you live now, which state would you

most like to live in for the next 10 years if you could easily move

there now?”We computed the tightness–looseness score of parti-

cipants’preferred state based on Harrington and Gelfand’s (2014)

work. Harrington and Gelfand (2014) developed a measure of state-

level tightness–looseness using a wide variety of indicators of

tightness–looseness. These indicators included strength of punish-

ment (e.g., the legality of corporal punishment, punitiveness of

laws), latitude/permissiveness (access to alcohol), diversity (as

measured by the percentage of total population that is foreign),

and prevalence and strength of institutions (e.g., state-level religi-

osity). Higher scores on this measure indicated greater preference

for tighter states (M

wave 2

=48.26, 95% CI [47.84, 48.67], SD

wave 2

12.42, M

wave 3

=48.47, 95% CI [47.95, 48.99], SD

wave 3

=12.71).

We included participants’gender, age, income, and education as

covariates.

We also included state-level variables that were corre-

lated with tightness–looseness, including political orientation of

the state (Jones, 2005;Saad, 2014), individualism–collectivism

(Vandello & Cohen, 1999), and gross product of the state

(Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2006,2014).

Results

See Table 1 for means, standard deviations, and correlations

between variables. As this was a longitudinal study, most partici-

pants completed both Wave 2 and Wave 3, which led to noninde-

pendence of observations. Therefore, we conducted a multilevel

linear regression model with random intercepts. Responses at Wave

2 and Wave 3 nested within participants. We regressed participants’

preferred state’s tightness–looseness score (the dependent variable)

on perceived control (the independent variable). Consistent with

Hypothesis 1, lower perceived personal control was associated with

a greater preference for tighter states (Table 2, Model 1). This

persisted and even strengthened after controlling for participants’

gender, age, income, education, state-level political party afﬁliation,

state-level individualism–collectivism, and state-level gross national

product (Table 2,Model2).

Discussion

Study 1 found that people with lower personal control preferred to

move to tighter U.S. states. As people may desire to move to various

states for reasons other than personal control, we ensured that this

relationship was robust after controlling for potential confounds,

such as the collectivism, political orientation, and per capita gross

domestic product (GDP) of the state.

An important limitation of this study is that it did not assess the

state participants were currently living in. As it is possible that

participants may have reported the state in which they currently

reside as their preferred state, an alternative explanation is that this

study merely shows that people from tighter states experience

lower personal control. To remedy this limitation, Study 3 tests

the causal effect of personal control on preference for tighter

cultures.

Study 2: Evidence From a Longitudinal

Two-Wave Study in China

Study 2 employed a longitudinal study design to provide further

evidence for the relationships between perceived control, need for

structure, and preference for tighter cultures (Hypotheses 1–4). With

the assistance of the company’s human resource management

department, we invited all employees of an apparel retailer located

in China to participate in our study. We tested whether lower

personal control measured at Time 1 will be associated with a

greater preference for a tighter organizational culture (Hypothesis

1), as well as a greater need for structure (Hypothesis 2) measured at

both Time 1 and Time 2. We also tested whether a greater need for

structure measured at Time 1 will be associated with a greater

preference for a tighter organizational culture measured at both Time

1 and Time 2 (Hypothesis 3). We then tested whether the need for

structure measured at Time 2 will mediate the predictive effect of

personal control assessed at Time 1 on preference for tighter cultures

measured at Time 2 (Hypothesis 4). Finally, to provide converging

mediation evidence, we also examined if the effect of personal

control (Time 1) on preference for a tighter organization (Time 2)

was mediated by a greater need for structure (Time 1).

Method

The hypotheses, power analysis, method, sample size, and pre-

selection criteria for this study were preregistered at http://aspredicte

d.org/blind.php?x=vf27gn.

Participants

As part of a larger study, participants completed measures of

perceived personal control, need for structure, and preference for a

tighter organizational culture. We sought to recruit as many parti-

cipants as possible from an apparel retailer in southern China. To

ensure conﬁdentiality, identiﬁcation codes were used to match

subordinate–supervisor dyads across different times. All employees

were assured that their responses were completely conﬁdential to

alleviate evaluation apprehension and increase the candidness of

responses. A total of 323 employees were invited to participate in the

present survey, and 225 participants provided complete responses

(response rate of 70%). No participants were excluded from this

study. Our sample included 225 employees (148 women, 77 men;

age

=31.18, SD =2.34).

Procedure

Perceived control was assessed using a 10-item scale (taken from

Ma & Kay, 2017,“I am in control of my life,”M

wave 1

=4.59, 95%

CI [4.48, 4.71], SD

wave 1

=.86, M

wave 2

=4.51, 95% CI [4.40, 4.61],

wave 2

=.81). We measured need for structure using a 12-item

scale (taken from Neuberg & Newsom, 1993,“I hate to change my

plans at the last minute,”M

wave 1

=4.33, 95% CI [4.24, 4.42],

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Individuals’political orientation was not measured in the MIDUS

survey. We also sought to include the race/ethnicity of the participant as

a covariate, but this information was not available.

PERSONAL CONTROL AND CULTURAL TIGHTNESS–LOOSENESS 5

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 1

Variable Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations Among Variables (Study 1)

Variable MSD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Perceived control (Wave 2) 5.56 0.98 (0.87)

2. Perceived control (Wave 3) 5.48 1.00 0.64*** (0.87)

3. Gender (1 =male,

2=female)

1.54 0.50 −0.07*** −0.06*—

4. Age (Wave 2) 55.66 12.26 −0.04*−0.06** −0.03 —

5. Age (Wave 3) 63.96 11.01 0.06** −0.09** −0.03 1.00*** —

6. Education (Wave 2) 7.37 2.52 0.16*** 0.17*** −0.11*** −0.14*** −0.11*** —

7. Education (Wave 3) 7.63 2.49 0.13*** 0.18*** −0.12*** −0.13*** −0.13*** 0.90*** —

8. Income (Wave 2) 42458.94 40543.80 0.18*** 0.18*** −0.31*** −0.18*** −0.12*** 0.35*** 0.35*** —

9. Income (Wave 3) 57078.54 58991.30 0.15*** 0.19*** −0.31*** −0.14*** −0.15*** 0.36*** 0.36*** 0.62*** —

10. % of republicans (Wave 2) 45.62 6.46 −0.01 −0.03 0.01 −0.02 −0.01 −0.07** −0.06** −0.04*−0.02 —

11. % of republicans (Wave 3) 40.13 6.22 −0.04 −0.03 −0.01 −0.01 −0.02 −0.14*** −0.12*** −0.07** −0.07*** 0.55*** —

12. Collectivism (Wave 2) 50.36 8.94 0.01 0.01 0.01 −0.03 −0.03 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.06** 0.08*** −0.18*** —

13. Collectivism (Wave 3) 50.17 9.11 0.02 −0.01 0.01 −0.02 −0.02 −0.01 −0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04 −0.20*** 0.74*** —

14. Tightness–looseness

(Wave 2)

48.26 12.42 −0.05** −0.04 0.03 −0.02 −0.02 −0.11*** −0.08*** −0.09*** −0.06** 0.48*** 0.44*** 0.24*** 0.19*** —

15. Tightness–looseness

(Wave 3)

48.47 12.71 −0.04 −0.03 0.03 −0.01 −0.02 −0.11*** −0.10*** −0.06** −0.08*** 0.36*** 0.60*** 0.19*** 0.27*** 0.77*** —

16. Gross state product

(logged, Wave 2)

12.57 0.99 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 −0.02 0.08*** 0.09*** 0.04** 0.05*−0.32*** −0.43*** 0.50*** 0.39*** −0.23*** −0.15*** —

17. Gross state product

(logged, Wave 3)

12.94 0.99 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.08*** 0.08*** 0.06*0.06** −0.20*** −0.59*** 0.41*** 0.50*** −0.14*** −0.20*** 0.70***

*p<.05. ** p<.01. *** p<.001.

6MA, SAVANI, LIU, TAI, AND KAY

wave 1

=.66, M

wave 2

=4.49, 95% CI [4.39, 4.59], SD

wave 2

=.74).

Finally, we adapted Gelfand et al.’s (2011) measure of cultural

tightness and developed a ﬁve-item

scale assessing preference for a

tighter organization (e.g., “My company should have more social

norms that people should abide by,”M

wave 1

=4.64, SD

wave 1

=.84,

95% CI [4.53, 4.75], M

wave 2

=4.72, 95% CI [4.61, 4.84], SD

wave 2

=.86). All items were measured on a 7-point scale (1 =strongly

disagree,7=strongly agree). Higher values on these three scales

indicated greater perceived personal control, need for structure, and

preference for a tighter organization. All scale items used can be

found in the Supplemental Materials.

Results

Variable means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations are

provided in Table 3. Conﬁrmatory factor analyses with personal

control, need for structure, and tightness–looseness measures at

Time 1 indicated a well-ﬁtting correlated three-factor structure,

(321) =495.47, p<.001, comparative ﬁt index (CFI) =.95,

Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) =.94, root-mean-square error of approx-

imation (RMSEA) =.049.

Supporting Hypothesis 1, lower perceived personal control mea-

sured at Time 1 was associated with a preference for a tighter

organization at both Time 1, b=−.17, 95% CI [−.298, −.045], β=

−.18, SE =.06, t(223) =−2.68, p=.008, η

=.03, and Time 2, b=

−.25, 95% CI [−.378, −.120], β=−.25, SE =.07, t(223) =−3.81,

p<.001, η

=.06. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, lower perceived

personal control measured at Time 1 was also associated with a

greater need for structure measured at both Time 1, b=−.12, 95%

CI [−.223, −.022], β=−.16, SE =.05, t(223) =−2.39, p=.018,

=.03, and at Time 2, b=−.29, 95% CI [−.401, −.186], β=−.34,

SE =.05, t(223) =−5.37, p<.001, η

=.11. Supporting Hypothesis 3,

greater need for structure measured at Time 1 was associated with a

preference for a tighter organization measured at both Time 1, b=

.21, 95% CI [.042, .371], β=.16, SE =.08, t(223) =2.48, p=.014,

=.03, and Time 2, b=.27, β=.21, 95% CI [.105, .442], SE =.09,

t(223) =3.20, p=.002, η

=.04.

We tested a two-wave longitudinal mediation model recom-

mended by Little et al. (2007). We bootstrapped the product term

of the perceived personal control (Time 1) to need for structure

(Time 2) and the need for structure (Time 1) to preference for a

tighter organization (Time 2) paths. Supporting Hypothesis 4, we

found that the 95% conﬁdence intervals of bootstrapped indirect

effect did not include zero, suggesting signiﬁcant mediation, Coeff

=−.02, SE =.01, 95% CI [−.057, −.003] (Figure 2). The indirect

effect was signiﬁcant after controlling for individuals’gender, age,

and education level, Coeff =−.02, SE =.01, 95% CI [−.059,

−.003]. Finally, we tested reverse mediation and bootstrapped the

product term of the preference for a tighter organization (Time 1) to

need for structure (Time 2) and the need for structure (Time 1) and

personal control (Time 2) paths. We found that the 95% conﬁdence

intervals of bootstrapped indirect effect included zero, ruling out

reverse mediation, Coeff =.03, SE =.03, 95% CI [−.017, .091].

As an additional test of mediation, we also examined if the effect

of personal control (Time 1) on preference for a tighter organization

(Time 2) was mediated by a greater need for structure (Time 1).

Again, we found that the 95% conﬁdence intervals of bootstrapped

indirect effect did not include zero, suggesting signiﬁcant mediation,

Coeff =−.03, SE =.02, 95% CI [−.065, −.002]. The indirect effect

was signiﬁcant after controlling for individuals’gender, age, and

education level, Coeff =−.03, SE =.02, 95% CI [−.064, −.003].

The reverse mediation with the preference for a tighter organization

(Time 2) as the independent variable, need for structure (Time 1) as

the mediator, and perceived personal control (Time 1) as the

dependent variable did not yield a signiﬁcant indirect effect, Coeff

=−.02, SE =.02, 95% CI [−.06, .004].

Discussion

Employing a longitudinal design, Study 2 provided further evi-

dence for the hypothesized relationships in a ﬁeld setting. We found

that employees with lower personal control had a greater need for

structure and, therefore, preferred their organization to have a tighter

culture. Further, consistent with our hypothesized model, need for

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 2

Preference for Tight (vs. Loose) States as a Function of Perceived Personal Control (Study 1)

Variable

Model 1 Model 2

b95% CI SE z b SE 95% CI z

Intercept 49.87** [48.25, 51.48] 0.82 60.48 32.55*** 2.80 [27.06, 38.05] 11.61

Perceived control −0.29*[−0.57, −0.01] 0.15 −1.97 −0.28*0.13 [−0.55, −0.02] −2.08

Gender (1 =male, 2 =female) 0.83*0.34 [0.15, 1.50] 2.41

Age 0.16*** 0.01 [0.13, 0.18] 13.10

Income 0.01 0.01 [−0.01, 0.01] 1.57

Education −0.21*** 0.06 [−0.34, −0.09] −3.30

Gross product of state that Pwants to live (log) −2.92*** 0.17 [−3.26, −2.59] −16.93

Political conservatism of state that Pwants to live 0.46*** 0.02 [0.42, 0.50] 22.75

Collectivism of state that Pwants to live 0.50*** 0.02 [0.47, 0.54] 28.22

N (Level 1) 6,320 5,717

N (Level 2) 4,036 3,750

Note.Nfor Model 2 is smaller due to missing demographic information. CI =conﬁdence interval; SE =standard error.

*p<.05. ** p<.01. *** p<.001.

We did not include an adapted version of the item “In this country, if

someone acts in an inappropriate way, others will strongly disapprove”

because we received feedback from the company representative that the

adapted version of this item, “In this company, if someone acts in an

inappropriate way, others should more strongly disapprove”was unclear

in Chinese and might be difﬁcult for employees to respond to.

PERSONAL CONTROL AND CULTURAL TIGHTNESS–LOOSENESS 7

structure mediated the link between perceived control and prefer-

ence for tighter cultures (as hypothesized), but not the reverse link

between preference for tighter cultures and perceived control.

Study 3: Perceived Personal Control

→Cultivating a Culture of Tightness

Employing an experimental chain design (Spencer et al., 2005),

Studies 3–6 aimed to provide causal evidence for our model.

Speciﬁcally, Study 3 tested whether experimentally induced lack

of personal control increases people’s likelihood of enforcing norms

(a key component of tightness) in an economic game. Participants

had to decide whether to punish or reward a person who acted in

either a self-interested or a prosocial manner. We framed coopera-

tion as the more socially desirable behavior and posttested the game

instructions to ensure that participants perceived that this was the

case. We predicted that participants with low personal control would

be more likely to uphold this norm of cooperation by rewarding

prosocial behavior and punishing self-interested behavior even at a

monetary cost to themselves (Fehr & Gachter, 2000).

Further, we sought to address the role of perceived power as an

alternative explanation. Control and power are conceptually linked

(Inesi et al., 2011), and people with higher power (who also tend to

have higher personal control) prefer situations with fewer situational

constraints (Fiske, 1993;Galinsky et al., 2008;Whitson et al.,

2013). Therefore, we assessed whether personal control drives

preference for tighter cultures above and beyond the sense of power.

Method

Participants

As this was the ﬁrst study that employed this manipulation and

assessed this dependent variable, we assumed a moderate effect size

of d=.50 (Richard et al., 2003). A power analysis with an effect size

of d=.50, p=.05 (two-tailed), and power =80% indicated that we

needed to recruit 128 participants. We posted a study seeking 128

participants in the lab at a university in Singapore, but only 126

participants showed up (84 women, 40 men; 2 unreported, mean age

of 22.76 years, SD =2.06).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 3

Variable Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations Among Variables (Study 3)

Variable MSD 123456

1. Perceived control (Wave 1) 4.59 0.86 (.93)

2. Perceived control (Wave 2) 4.51 0.81 0.38*** (.90)

3. Need for structure (Wave 1) 4.33 0.66 −0.16*0.02 (.90)

4. Need for structure (Wave 2) 4.49 0.74 −0.34*** −0.21** 0.28*** (.88)

5. Desire for organization greater tightness–looseness (Wave 1) 4.64 0.84 −0.18** −0.09 0.16*0.41*** (.90)

6. Desire for organization greater tightness–looseness (Wave 2) 4.72 0.86 −0.25*** −0.10 0.21** 0.46*** 0.89*** (.85)

Note.N=225.

*p<.05. ** p<.01. *** p<.001.

Figure 2

Need for Structure Mediates the Relationship Between Personal Control and Desire

for a Tighter Organizational Culture

Note. Bolded paths were used in the computation of the indirect effect. Unstandardized

coefﬁcients. Study 3.

*p<.05. ** p<.01. *** p<.001.

8MA, SAVANI, LIU, TAI, AND KAY

Procedure

All participants were asked to complete a concept identiﬁcation

task (Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). Participants were randomly

assigned to either the high or the low-control condition. All parti-

cipants were informed that they would complete a concept identiﬁ-

cation task, in which they would be presented with pairs of symbols,

and in each pair, one symbol represents the concept while the other

does not. They were told that they would be given feedback about

whether they had chosen the correct symbol whenever they selected

a symbol.

Participants ﬁrst completed a practice session and then four

sessions with four different concepts. Each session had 10 rounds.

Participants in the control condition did not receive any feedback for

each round. In contrast, participants in the low-control condition

received random feedback not contingent on their responses. Past

research has found that feedback that is unrelated to performance

reduces people’s sense of control (Pittman & D’Agostino, 1989;

Pittman & Pittman, 1979;Whitson & Galinsky, 2008).

After the personal control manipulation, participants were

informed that they would be playing a point’s allocation game

and that they would receive a ﬁnal bonus depending on the decisions

that they and two other participants made. They were told that the

identity of the other participants was anonymous, but the bonus

payments that they would receive were real. Participants were then

asked to complete a three-person strategic game with three different

roles: the Decider, the Receiver, and the Judge (adapted from Ding

& Savani, 2020, Study 4; see also Peysakhovich et al., 2014;Strang

et al., 2017). The game comprised 20 rounds. For each round, the

Decider received 10 points whereas the Receiver received 0 points.

The Decider would have to decide whether to keep all 10 points for

themselves and give 0 points to the Receiver (i.e., to act in a self-

serving manner), or to give 5 points to the Receiver and keep 5

points for themselves (i.e., to act in an altruistic manner). The

Receiver had no choice but to accept what the Decider gave them.

The Judge received 20 points in each round and was informed

about the Decider’s decision in each round. If the Decider acted in a

self-serving manner, the Judge could choose to give up 5 of their

points to punish the Decider, who would receive a deduction of 10

points and thus end up with nothing. If the Decider acted altruisti-

cally, the Judge could choose to give up 5 of their points to reward

the Decider, who would receive 10 additional points (to receive a

total of 15 points). Because Judges were asked if they wanted to

“reward”Deciders when Deciders chose to split their points evenly

or to “punish”Deciders when Deciders chose to split their points

unevenly, the wording of the instructions implied that acting

prosocially was the socially desirable behavior. A posttest con-

ﬁrmed our assumption (see Supplemental Materials). Participants

were also informed that they would receive their cumulative points

in the form of a monetary bonus, with 1,000 points equaling one

Singapore dollar.

Unbeknownst to participants, all of them were assigned to the role

of a Judge. All participants played 10 rounds in which they were told

that the Decider acted self-servingly, and 10 rounds in which they were

told that the Decider acted altruistically. We randomized the order of

these 20 rounds to address the possibility that the effects are explained

by a particular sequence of choices on the part of the Decider.

After completing the 20 trials, participants were asked to com-

plete an eight-item scale that assessed their subjective feelings of

power when they played the role of the Judge in the game (e.g.,

“During the experimental game, I can get the other participants to

listen to what I say”;“During the experimental game, my wishes did

not carry much weight”;“During the experimental game, I could get

the other participants to do what I wanted”; adapted from Anderson

et al., 2012;α=.79; see Supplemental Materials, for the full scale).

Results

Across the 20 rounds, we summed the number of times that

participants chose to uphold the norm of cooperation by rewarding

Deciders when they acted altruistically and punishing Deciders

when they acted self-servingly. As the dependent variable was a

count variable, we analyzed it using a Poisson regression. As

predicted, participants in the low-control condition (M=8.83,

95% CI [7.08, 10.57], SD =6.93) chose to uphold the norm of

cooperation more so than participants in the high-control condition

(M=6.73, 95% CI [5.07, 8.39], SD =6.58), b=−.27, 95% CI

[−.40, −.14], SE =.06, incidence rate ratio =.76, z=−4.20, p<

001. Another Poisson regression found that this ﬁnding held even

after controlling for perceived power,

b=−.32, 95% CI [−.45,

−.19], SE =.07, incidence rate ratio =.73, z=−4.87, p<.001.

We also examined the effect of manipulated control on partici-

pants’tendency to punish selﬁsh behaviors separately from the

tendency to reward cooperative behaviors. We found that partici-

pants in the low-control condition (M=4.27, 95% CI [3.27, 5.27],

SD =3.96) chose to reward cooperative behaviors more so than

participants in the high-control condition (M=2.89, 95% CI [2.00,

3.77], SD =3.52), b =−.39, 95% CI [−.58, −.20], SE =.10,

incidence rate ratio =.68, z=−4.07, p<001. Participants in the

low-control condition (M=4.56, 95% CI [3.54, 5.57], SD =4.03)

chose to punish selﬁsh behaviors more so than participants in the

high-control condition (M=3.84, 95% CI [2.85, 4.84], SD =3.95),

b=−.17, 95% CI [−.34, .01], SE =.09, incidence rate ratio =.84,

z=−1.95, p=.051. Finally, the effect of control on rewarding and

punishing behaviors held after controlling for participants’sense of

power. A Poisson regression found that compared to those in the

high-control condition, participants in the low-control condition

were more likely to punish deciders who acted selﬁshly, b=−.20,

95% CI [−.37, −.02], SE =.09, incidence rate ratio =.82, z=−2.24,

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

It is possible that different sequences of altruistic versus self-serving

decisions by the Decider might have inﬂuenced participants’decision to

reward or punish the Decider. For example, Judges in the low-control

condition might be more likely to punish Deciders when Deciders’self-

serving choices were clustered mostly in the ﬁrst 10 decisions instead of

evenly distributed across the 20 trials. To address this concern, we random-

ized the order of the 20 trials independent of the experimental manipulation.

We further examined whether a higher sense of power can explain the

effect of the experimental manipulation in the high-control condition. We

found power varied in an opposite direction as expected—participants in the

high-control condition felt a lower sense of power (M=4.41, 95% CI [4.14,

4.67], SD =1.06) than those in the low-control condition (M=4.79, 95% CI

[4.52, 5.05], SD =1.05), t(124) =2.02, p=.046, d=0.36. Importantly,

participants’sense of power was also not signiﬁcantly correlated with the

number of times participants chose to uphold social norms by punishing self-

serving deciders and rewarding altruistic deciders (r=−.12, p=.19).

Breaking down the two types of trials, we found that perceived power was

uncorrelated with the number of times participants rewarded altruistic

behaviors (r=−.14, p=.11) or punished self-serving behaviors (r=

−.06, p=.48). These ﬁndings suggest that power cannot serve as an

alternative explanation of the present ﬁndings.

PERSONAL CONTROL AND CULTURAL TIGHTNESS–LOOSENESS 9

p=.025; they were also more likely to reward deciders who acted

cooperatively, b=−.46, 95% CI [−.65, −.27], SE =.10, incidence

rate ratio =.63, z=−4.74, p<.001.

Discussion

In sum, Study 3 demonstrated that participants experiencing low

personal control were more willing to uphold the norm of coopera-

tion even at a ﬁnancial cost to themselves. Importantly, this effect

was robust even after controlling for participants’sense of power.

Study 4: Perceived Personal Control

→Need for Structure

In this study, we manipulated perceived personal control and

tested whether it inﬂuenced participants’need for structure (Hypoth-

esis 2). Further, as in Study 3, we addressed feelings of power as an

alternative explanation. In addition, because participants might feel

more negative affect and less positive affect in the low personal

control condition than in the high personal control condition, we

also controlled for positive and negative affect in our analyses.

Method

The hypotheses, power analysis, method, sample size, and pre-

selection criteria for this study were preregistered at https://osf.io/

bzeq9.

Participants

Landau et al. (2015) estimated that the average effect of the recall

control manipulation that we sought to employ in this study on

structure was r=.23 or d=.47. Given an effect size of Cohen d=

.47, a=.05 (two-tailed), and power =.90, we need to recruit 194

participants. We rounded up this number to 200 participants and

posted a survey seeking 200 U.S. residents on Amazon Mechanical

Turk. In response, 201 participants completed the survey. Consistent

with our preregistration, we excluded eight participants with dupli-

cate IP addresses or geolocations. The ﬁnal sample included 193

participants (98 women, 95 men; M

age

=44.75, SD =12.38).

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to either the high-control or

the low-control condition. Participants who were assigned to the low

personal control condition were asked:

Please recall a time in the past when you had low control. For the next 2

minutes, please write about the experience in which you felt a complete

lack of control over the situation. In other words, write about a time

when you experienced very low or no feelings of control. Describe the

situation, what exactly happened, and how you felt at that moment in

detail. Please use at least 60 words to describe the situation.

Participants assigned to the high-control condition were asked:

Please recall a time in the past when you had high control. For the next 2

minutes, please write about the experience in which you felt complete

control over the situation. In other words, write about a time when you

experienced a great sense of control. Describe the situation, what

exactly happened, and how you felt at that moment in detail. Please

use at least 60 words to describe the situation.

All participants then responded to a four-item state need for

structure scale adapted from Neuberg and Newsom (1993):“Right

now, I would not like to be in situations where the rules are not

clear,”“Right now, I would hate to be in unpredictable situations,”

“Right now, I would not like to work with people who are

unpredictable,”and “Right now, I would feel upset if I go into a

situation without knowing what I can expect from it”(α=.82).

Finally, we assessed participants’positive and negative affect using

the 20-item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) scale

(α

positive

=.93; α

negative

=.94, Watson et al., 1988) and sense of

power using an eight-item scale (α=.94, Anderson et al., 2012).

Results

As preregistered, we excluded three participants who provided

gibberish responses (e.g., “good,”“yes”) to the open-ended prompt

after the experimental manipulation. Consistent with Hypothesis 2,

we found that participants in the low personal control condition

(M=5.43, 95% CI [5.22, 5.65], SD =1.07) reported a signiﬁcantly

higher need for structure than those in the high personal control

condition (M=4.64, 95% CI [4.36, 4.92], SD =1.37), t(188) =4.49,

p<.001, d=.64. A regression with need for structure as the

dependent variable and personal control (0 =low control, 1 =high

control), sense of power, and positive and negative affect as pre-

dictors indicated a signiﬁcant effect of condition, b=−.79, 95%

CI [−1.13, −.44], β=−.31, SE =.18, t(185) =−4.50, p<.001, η

.10. Perceived power, b=.16, 95% CI [−.03, .34], β=.14, SE =.09,

t(185) =1.70, p=.091, η

=.02, and positive affect, b=.05, 95%

CI [−.10, .19], β=.05, SE =.07, t(185) =.66, p=.511, η

=.01,

were not signiﬁcantly associated with greater need for structure.

Greater negative affect was associated with greater need for struc-

ture, b=.43, 95% CI [.09, .76], β=.18, SE =.17, t(185) =2.50,

p=.013, η

=.03.

Discussion

Study 4 provided support for the causal effect of personal

control on the need for structure. Speciﬁcally, we found that

participants who recalled a time when they had low personal

control wanted more structure than those who recalled a time

when they had high personal control. Importantly, the causal effect

of personal control on the need for structure remained signiﬁcant

after controlling for participants’sense of power, positive affect,

and negative affect.

Study 5: Need for Structure →Tightness–Looseness

Study 5 tested whether a high need for structure increases

people’s desire for tighter cultures (Hypothesis 3). Once again,

we measured perceived power and positive and negative affect

measures as potential confounds.

Further, in this study, we employed a different measure of tight

cultures to provide converging evidence for our predictions. As we

recruited respondents from a variety of different organizations in

this study. To facilitate comparability, we opted to use a measure of

tightness–looseness that assessed the appropriateness of various

concrete behaviors in the workplace (e.g., swearing, arguing).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

10 MA, SAVANI, LIU, TAI, AND KAY

Method

Participants

As this was the ﬁrst experiment in which we manipulated the

need for structure, we could not use a prior effect size to conduct a

power analysis. Nevertheless, we conducted a power analysis

assuming a medium effect size, d=.40, p=.05 (two-tailed), and

power =80%, indicating that we needed 200 participants. We

posted a survey seeking 200 U.S. residents employed full-time

and working from their ofﬁce (as opposed to from their homes or

commercial locations) from Proliﬁc Academic. We received

responses from 202 participants. Consistent with the other online

studies, we excluded two participants with duplicate IP ad-

dresses/geolocations. The ﬁnal sample included data from 200

participants (174 women, 25 men, and 1 other gender; M

age

=27.

20, SD =7.66).

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to either a high or a low need

for structure condition. In the low need for structure condition,

participants were told:

Extensive research has found that to be happy and successful at work,

employees need to be spontaneous, to avoid being creatures of habits

and routines. Successful workers are those who don’t have a single,

ﬁxed work schedule.

Participants were then given three open-ended boxes and asked to

indicate three reasons why “it is important to work in a free,

spontaneous manner at your current workplace.”

In the high need for structure condition, participants were told:

Extensive research has found that to be happy and successful at work,

employees need to be organized, and to have regular habits and routines.

Successful workers are those who have a clear and structured work

schedule.

They were then given three open-ended textboxes and asked to

indicate three reasons why “it is important to work in a structured,

organized manner at your current workplace.”

After completing this task, all participants were informed:

From everyday experiences interacting with our coworkers, we have

all developed a subjective “impression”or “feeling”for the appro-

priateness of any given behavior in the workplace. We are interested

in your judgment of the appropriateness of a number of behaviors at

your current workplace. Please rate the extent to which you think

each of the following behaviors should be appropriate at your current

workplace.

To assess the desire for a tighter culture, we presented all

participants with 12 behaviors (e.g., arguing, laughing, kissing;

taken from Gelfand et al., 2011) and asked them to rate whether

each behavior was appropriate at their current workplace (1 =

extremely inappropriate,7=extremely appropriate;α=.74).

We recoded these items such that higher values indicated greater

inappropriateness, indicating tighter cultures, and averaged them to

form a composite score. Finally, as in Study 4, we assessed

participants’positive and negative affect using the PANAS scale

(α

positive

=.93, α

negative

=.90), and their sense of power (α=.87).

Results

No participants provided gibberish or nonsensical answers in the

open-ended prompts in the experimental manipulation. An inde-

pendent samples ttest found that participants in the high need for

structure condition indicated that the various behaviors were less

appropriate in their workplace (M=4.38, 95% CI [4.22, 4.54], SD =

0.80) than those in the low need for structure condition (M=4.14,

95% CI [4.02, 4.26], SD =0.62), t(198) =2.43, p=.016, d=0.34,

consistent with Hypothesis 3.

Next, we regressed participants’desire for a tight organization on

experimental conditions (0 =low need for structure,1=high need

for structure), perceived power, and positive and negative affect.

The effect of the experimental manipulation was signiﬁcant, b=.22,

95% CI [.03, .42], β=.15, SE =.10, t(195) =2.23, p=.027, η

.02. Perceived power, b=−.08, 95% CI [−.19, .04], β=−.10, SE =

.06, t(195) =−1.32, p=.187, η

=.01, and positive affect, b=.03,

95% CI [−.05, .10], β=.05, SE =.04, t(195) =.71, p=.479, η

.01, were not signiﬁcantly associated with a desire for a tight

organization. Greater negative affect was associated with greater

need for structure, b=−.15, 95% CI [−.26, −.05], β=−.21, SE =

.05, t(195) =−2.82, p=.005, η

=.04.

Discussion

Study 5 offered causal support for the relationship between the

need for structure and desire for organizational tightness. Partici-

pants who thought about the beneﬁts of having more structure and

order in the workplace perceived those various behaviors as less

appropriate in their workplace than those who thought about the

beneﬁts of having more ﬂexibility. Although we did not directly

measure desire or preference for a tighter culture in this study, our

dependent measure is a direct measure of tightness as fewer

behaviors are appropriate in each situation in tight cultures. Given

that the objective tightness of participants’organization was likely

randomly distributed across conditions, the ﬁndings are consistent

with our hypothesis that a high need for structure increases people’s

preference for a tighter culture.

Study 6a: Tightness–Looseness →Personal Control

Study 6a tested whether being in a tight culture reduces people’s

perceptions of personal control (Hypothesis 5).

Method

The hypotheses, power analysis, method, and preselection criteria

for this study were preregistered at https://osf.io/upv3q.

Participants

A previous study employing a similar design yielded an effect

size of d=1.89 for personal control. A power analysis using

Cohen’sd=1.89, α=.05 (two-tailed), and power =95%, indicated

that we need to recruit 18 participants. However, to keep up with

conventional sample size levels, we decided to recruit 100 partici-

pants. We posted a survey seeking 100 U.S. residents on Amazon

Mechanical Turk and received 100 responses. We sought to exclude

participants with duplicate IP addresses/geolocations. Data from

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PERSONAL CONTROL AND CULTURAL TIGHTNESS–LOOSENESS 11

two participants were excluded. The ﬁnal sample thus included 98

participants (44 women, 54 men, M

age

=40.89, SD =11.68).

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to read about a company that

either had a tight culture or a loose culture (see Supplemental

Materials). After they read the description, participants were asked

to summarize the company’s beliefs and to provide one or two

examples from their lives that were consistent with the company’s

beliefs. Next, as a manipulation check, participants indicated the

extent to which they shared the company’s belief that it is important

(vs. not important) to have many social rules and norms in the

workplace (1 =not at all, 100 =a great deal). We reverse-coded the

manipulation check item in the culturally loose company so that

higher numbers indicated greater perceived importance of social

rules and norms in both conditions.

Thereafter, participants were asked to imagine that they accepted

a job in the company and were asked to complete a three-item

measure of personal control (e.g., “I would feel in control of my

life,”α=.91; adapted from Greenaway et al., 2015). All items were

measured on 7-point scales (1 =strongly disagree,7=

strongly agree).

Results

As preregistered, we excluded one participant who provided

gibberish responses to the open-ended prompts used after the

manipulation. The manipulation check was successful—participants

in the culturally loose condition believed that social rules and norms

were less important (M=45.25, 95% CI [36.13, 54.38], SD =32.46)

than those in the culturally tight condition (M=75.11, 95% CI

[68.96, 81.26], SD =20.70), t(95) =−5.33, p<.001, d=−1.10.

Consistent with Hypothesis 5, participants who were asked to

imagine working for a company with a tight culture perceived

signiﬁcantly lower personal control (M=4.43, 95% CI [4.02,

4.85], SD =1.41) than those asked to imagine working for a

company with a loose culture (M=5.83, 95% CI [5.58, 6.08],

SD =.90), t(95) =5.87, p<.001, d=1.19.

Consistent with our hypothesis, Study 6a provided causal evi-

dence for the idea that tight cultures lower people’s sense of personal

control.

Study 6b: Tightness–Looseness →Collective Control

Finally, Study 6b tested the last link in the cycle of mutual

constitution: whether tighter cultures would increase people’s per-

ceptions of collective control (Hypothesis 6).

Method

The hypotheses, power analysis, method, and preselection criteria

for this study were preregistered at https://osf.io/q7ncb.

Participants

A previous study employing a similar design yielded an effect

size of d=.98 for a slightly different dependent measure (perceived

predictability of social interactions). A power analysis with Cohen’s

d=.98, a=.05 (two-tailed), and power =95% indicated that we

needed to recruit 36 participants. However, we sought to recruit 100

participants to have at least 50 participants per condition. We posted

a survey seeking 100 U.S. residents on Mechanical Turk and

received 100 responses. Per our preregistered exclusion criteria,

we excluded four participants with duplicate IP addresses/geoloca-

tions. The ﬁnal sample thus included 96 participants (49 women,

46 men, 1 unreported, M

age

=43.39, SD =10.66).

Procedure

As in Study 6a, participants were randomly assigned to read about

a company that either had a tight culture or a loose culture (see

Supplemental Materials). After they read the description, partici-

pants were asked to summarize the company’s beliefs and to provide

one or two examples from their lives that were consistent with the

company’s beliefs. Next, as a manipulation check, participants

indicated the extent to which they shared the company’s belief

that it is important (vs. not important) to have many social rules and

norms in the workplace (1 =not at all, 100 =a great deal). We

recoded participants’responses such that higher numbers indicated

greater perceived importance of social rules and norms in both

conditions.

Thereafter, participants were asked to imagine that they accepted

a job in the company, and were asked to complete a three-item

measure of collective control (e.g., “I would feel that employees in

the company can work together to control the fate of the company,”

α=.94, adapted from Ding & Savani, 2020). All items were

measured on 7-point scales (1 =strongly disagree,7=

strongly agree).

Results

No participants provided gibberish responses to the open-ended

prompts used in the manipulation. The manipulation check was

successful—participants in the culturally loose condition believed

that social rules and norms were less important (M=46.00, 95% CI

[37.32, 54.68], SD =31.20) than those in the culturally tight

condition (M=74.77, 95% CI [67.17, 82.36], SD =24.67),

t(93) =−4.91, p<.001, d=1.02.

Consistent with Hypothesis 6, participants asked to imagine

working for the tight company perceived signiﬁcantly higher col-

lective control (M=5.84, 95% CI [5.61, 6.08], SD =.78) than those

asked to imagine working for a loose company (M=4.99, 95% CI

[4.64, 5.35], SD =1.29), t(94) =−3.80, p<.001, d=.878.

Consistent with our hypothesis, Study 6b provided causal evi-

dence for the idea that tight cultures lower people’s feelings of

personal control but increase their sense of collective control.

General Discussion

Six studies documented the cycle of mutual constitution between

individuals’sense of control and need for structure and cultural

tightness–looseness. American adults experiencing low personal

control preferred to live in tighter states (Study 1). Chinese employ-

ees perceiving a low sense of control had a higher need for structure,

and thus preferred a tighter organizational culture (Study 2). Sin-

gaporean students led to experience low personal control were more

willing to uphold the norm of cooperation in an economic game at a

personal cost (Study 3), and American adults led to experience low

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

12 MA, SAVANI, LIU, TAI, AND KAY

personal control had a higher need for structure (Study 4). Addi-

tionally, American adults who considered the beneﬁts of high

structure preferred a tighter culture (Study 5). Finally, when asked

to imagine themselves working in a tight culture, American adults

had a lower sense of personal control (Study 6a) but a higher sense

of collective control (Study 6b). Overall, the ﬁndings illustrate the

bidirectional relationship between tight cultures and personal

control.

Theoretical Implications

The present research contributes to the ﬁeld of cultural psychol-

ogy by demonstrating the mutual constitution of psyche and culture.

An important tenet of cultural psychology is that cultural patterns

and individual psychological states mutually shape each other

(Fiske et al., 1998;Markus & Kitayama, 1994). However, limited

research has documented the bidirectional relationship between the

culture and psyche within the same article (although see Kashima,

2000;Kitayama et al., 1997;Morling & Lamoreaux, 2008;Salter et

al., 2018, for exceptions). By examining how the desire for personal

control, a fundamental human motivation, inﬂuences preference for

tight cultures (and vice versa), our research contributes to the theory

of mutual constitution by documenting a motivational individual-

level pathway that could lead to cultural change.

The present research also represents an important theoretical

advancement to compensatory control theory. By focusing on cultural

tightness as a means of compensatory control, it makes clear a path in

which control-motivated structure-seeking might be mutuallyreinfor-

cing, a possibility that has so far not been considered before (Landau

et al., 2015). That is, experiencing low personal control could lead to

greater preference for the structure prevalent in tight cultures, and

possessing structure can then reduce individual personal control.

Further, by showing that the desire for control can also be satisﬁed

by the increased collective control afforded by tight cultures, we offer

a path in which the gradual decrease in personal control in tight

cultures can unfold in an adaptive way. Through these mutually

reinforcing relationships over time,people in tighter cultures lean less

on personal agency and more on collective control as a means of

perceiving an orderly and controllable world. Thus these pathways

might help explain cultural differences in the relative emphasis on

personal and collective control (Morling & Evered, 2006).

Our work also contributes to cultural tightness–looseness

research by providing evidence for key assumptions of the theory.

A core prediction of tightness–looseness theory is that psychologi-

cal affordances, such as people’s feelings of personal control,

“reﬂect and support”tightness–looseness (Gelfand et al., 2011,

p. 1101). In other words, tightness–looseness theory predicts that

personal control and tightness–looseness possess a causal bidirec-

tional relationship. However, due to their correlational nature,

research that has tested the relation between personal control and

tightness–looseness is unable to reveal the causality between these

two constructs. For example, personal control was found to be

correlated with tightness at the state level in the United States

(Harrington & Gelfand, 2014;Uz, 2015). By providing causal

evidence for a bottom-up pathway in which psychological states

(i.e., people’s personal control) inﬂuence preference for tight cul-

tures, and a top-down pathway in which being in tight cultures

inﬂuences people’s personal control, we extend existing work on

tightness–looseness.

In addition, scholars have argued that tight cultures evolved as a

way for people to collectively mitigate societal threats (Gelfand et

al., 2011;Pelto, 1968;Triandis, 1989). We support this idea by

showing that being in a tight culture increases people’s perceptions

of collective control, which makes them feel more conﬁdent in

overcoming external threats as a group. The increased collective

control afforded by tight cultures might be especially important in

the current COVID-19 pandemic, in which a coordinated collective

response is vital for survival. Indeed, in support of the idea that

tightness can help cultural groups respond to collective threats,

Gelfand et al. (2021) recently found fewer COVID-19-related deaths

in tighter cultures.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

Notable strengths of our work include a test of our hypotheses in

culturally diverse contexts that also vary in tightness–looseness,

including America, China, and Singapore. We also provide con-

verging tests of our hypotheses using multiple methods, including

experiments as well as longitudinal designs. Despite these strengths,

our research also has limitations which we discuss below.

One reason there has been limited research examining the mutual

constitution of the psyche and culture is that the process itself

unfolds over a long interval of time, rendering it difﬁcult to capture

empirically. Although we have obtained support for some aspects of

this process using different manipulations of control while employ-

ing ﬁeld, experimental, and archival study designs, our studies are

limited in that they examine these processes in a static and piecemeal

fashion, which may risk oversimplifying the dynamic and interwo-

ven nature of the mutual constitution process.

Further, when demonstrating the effect of personal control on

cultural tightness, we have largely assessed people’s preference for

tighter cultures or their tendency to punish/reward others to uphold

norms, not actual changes in cultural tightness. Indeed, an important

assumption of our cyclical model is that preference for tighter

organizations would lead to objective changes in cultural tightness,

which would then reduce personal control but bolster collective

control, and so forth. One way of addressing this limitation could be

to conduct ﬁeld experiments in which some groups could be

randomly assigned to have high personal control and others to

have low personal control. Researchers can then track differences in

preferences for tightness and actual tightness of these groups, as well

as psychological and behavioral indicators of need for structure,

personal control, and collective control over time.

Although we sought to address the role of power as an alternative

explanation in Study 3 by showing that the effect of perceived

control held after controlling for power as a covariate, our measure-

ment of power in Study 3 may not capture all the ways in which

power is manifested in everyday life. Indeed, the measure of power

that we used (Anderson et al., 2012) taps people’s subjective sense

of power, as opposed to objective power that stems from structural

factors such as socioeconomic status, occupation, income, gender,

ethnicity, and so on. It is possible, for instance, that people with a

lower chronic sense of power (e.g., women) may prefer stronger

norms (e.g., against sexual harassment). Those with higher levels of

power may prefer looser cultures as they would prefer not to be

shackled by rules and norms (Fiske, 1993). Future research can

investigate the relationship between structural power and tightness.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PERSONAL CONTROL AND CULTURAL TIGHTNESS–LOOSENESS 13

Finally, cultural characteristics are multiply determined, and

various forces may countervail and even amplify the effect of

personal control on cultural tightness and the effects of tightness

on personal agency and collective control (Cohen, 2001). Although

we documented that the mutual constitution process generalizes

across countries varying in cultural tightness, other dimensions of

culture are likely to shape the bidirectional relationship between

personal control and tight cultures. For example, individualism–

collectivism might inﬂuence the degree to which people prefer tight

cultures when they feel that they lack personal control (Kay &

Sullivan, 2013;Ma et al., 2019). Speciﬁcally, whereas people in

individualistic cultures are more likely to cope with control threats

by directly bolstering their sense of personal control, those in

collectivistic cultures may opt to regain their sense of control

through compensatory control processes (e.g., preferring tighter

cultures). Further, individualism–collectivism might also shape

the degree to which being in a tight culture inﬂuences people’s

feelings of personal and collective control. Speciﬁcally, collectivism

might strengthen the effect of tight cultures on people’s sense of

personal and collective control because people in these cultures are

more responsive to social norms (Savani et al., 2015). Future

research can examine how other cultural values can strengthen or

weaken the observed effects.

Tightness–looseness is a signiﬁcant dimension along which

cultures vary (Gelfand et al., 2011;Triandis, 1972). By documenting

a bidirectional relationship between personal control and cultural

tightness, the present research documents that culture and psyche

can indeed “make each other up”(Shweder, 1991) and that the basic

human desire for control can have profound societal implications.

References

Adams, G., & Markus, H. R. (2001). Culture as patterns: An alternative

approach to the problem of reiﬁcation. Culture and Psychology,7(3), 283–

296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X0173002

Adams, G., & Markus, H. R. (2004). Toward a conception of culture suitable

for a social psychology of culture.In M. Schaller & C. S.Crandall (Eds.), The

psychological foundations of culture (pp. 335–360). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Aktas, M.,Gelfand, M. J., & Hanges, P. J. (2016). Cultural tightness–looseness

and perceptions of effective leadership. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-

ogy,47(2), 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115606802

Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of

power. Journal of Personality,80(2), 313–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j

.1467-6494.2011.00734.x

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efﬁcacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efﬁcacy.

Current Directions in Psychological Science,9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/

10.1111/1467-8721.00064

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University

Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812507

Brim, O. G., Ryff, C. D., & Kessler, R. C. (2004). The MIDUS national

survey: An overview. In O. G. Brim, C. D. Ryff, & R. C. Kessler (Eds.),

How healthy are we?: A national study of well-being at midlife (pp. 1–34).

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation series on mental

health and development. Studies on successful midlife development. The

University of Chicago Press.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2006). Western states led economic growth

in 2005.https://apps.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/2006/pdf/

gsp0606.pdf

Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2014). Broad growth across states in 2014.

https://apps.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/2015/pdf/gsp0615.pdf

Caluori, N., Jackson, J. C., Gray, K., & Gelfand, M. (2020). Conﬂict changes

how people view God. Psychological Science,31(3), 280–292. https://

doi.org/10.1177/0956797619895286

Chua, R. Y., Roth, Y., & Lemoine, J. F. (2015). The impact of culture on

creativity: How cultural tightness and cultural distance affect global

innovation crowdsourcing work. Administrative Science Quarterly,

60(2), 189–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214563595

Cohen, D. (2001). Cultural variation: Considerations and implications. Psy-

chological Bulletin,127(4), 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909

.127.4.451

Cohen, D., & Kitayama, S. (2007). Cultural psychology: This stanza and the

next. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology

(pp. 847–851). Guilford Press.

Ding, Y., & Savani, K. (2020). From variability to vulnerability: People

exposed to greater variability judge wrongdoers more harshly. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology,118(6), 1101–1117. https://doi.org/10

.1037/pspa0000185

Ettner, S. L., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2001). Workers’perceptions of how jobs affect

health: A social ecological perspective. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology,6(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.2.101

Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. (2000). Cooperation and punishment in public goods

experiments. The American Economic Review,90(4), 980–994. https://

doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.980

Fiske, A., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural

matrix of social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 915–981). McGraw-Hill.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on

The mutual constitution of culture and psyche: The bidirectional relationship between individuals' perceived control and cultural tightness-looseness

Abstract