Abstract
Michele Gelfand is no stranger to the cross-cultural psychology community as one of its most celebrated scholars. Her new book Rule Makers, Rule Breakers indeed breaks some rules and makes others in writing scholarly work. There is much to praise about the book, but I would like to start with the way it has been written. Eleven chapters of Gelfand’s new book are full of original ideas, scientific evidence to support these ideas, and new questions to be explored by future research. The way this rich scientific content is delivered is indeed where Gelfand “breaks the rules” in the best way possible. The text is extremely accessible, and the flow is not interrupted by references or technical details of research cited. Gelfand “makes rules” of writing for scholars whose ideas need to be heard by audiences much larger than the (small) scientific community. The new rules Gelfand has adopted include being liberal and creative in her format and writing as if she is telling a story.
The wide spectrum of innovative methodologies used by Gelfand and colleagues that forms the basis of this book is truly amazing. They ranged from counting the color of cars in parking lots around the world (Gelfand and van Egmond, unpublished data) to using the state-of-the-art neuroscience technique called hyper-scanning (Mu et al., 2017). For example, in one of the (fun) field experiments, Gelfand and her team put on fake skin piercings, purple hair extension, or synthetic facial warts to examine whether strangers in 14 countries help them with directions depending on their country’s tightness–looseness (TL) orientation (Jackson et al., 2018). In another study, they waited in front of movie theaters and asked questions to actual viewers of the movie Contagion (pathogen-scary movie whose viewers felt that they were part of a pandemic) about their tolerance for social deviants (Gelfand and Lun, 2013). The book also showcases examples of intensive fieldwork Gelfand has courageously undertaken, such as interviewing the mastermind of Bali bombing in a prison in Indonesia. Gelfand also successfully leverages a wide spectrum of scientific literature from different disciplines ranging from ancient and modern history to philosophy, political science, sociology, zoology, and neuroscience as well as arts and humanities (e.g. classical novels; films and novels of popular culture) to strengthen her arguments.
In part 1, the book starts with a general discussion on the role of social norms in societies, followed by an in-depth discussion of what TL is, what outcomes it is associated with, and how it evolves. The gist of TL is that “…L cultures tend to be open, but they’re also much more disorderly. On the flip side, T cultures have a comforting order and predictability, but they’re less tolerant” (p. 36). Starting from this basic definition, throughout the book Gelfand talks about the perils and promises of T and L, cautioning us about the extremes of both, and promoting the right balance for optimum functioning for societies, organizations, families, and individuals what she terms “The Goldilock’s Principle of TL.” While the division of countries according to other cultural dimensions (e.g. individualism–collectivism (IC), power distance (PD)) largely overlaps with each other and with the level of economic development, no such association is evident in TL (p. 27). Mapping of countries according to their TL score is very different from that according to the scores of other cultural dimensions. For example, countries high in T include Pakistan and Norway; those high in L include Brazil and the Netherlands. Researchers using TL will be able to capture variance above and beyond, say, IC or PD.
Gelfand reports (and theoretically justifies) interesting associations of a country’s TL score and macro indicators, such as percentage of left handed and obese individuals, range of clock deviation, similarity of investor decisions, and the amount of debt people have. Part 1 concludes with a chapter on the pathways to TL. The title of the chapter says it all: disaster, disease, diversity. In a nutshell, with some interesting exceptions that she discusses, when there is threat (disaster, disease), there is T; when there is diversity, there is L. Most interestingly, Gelfand argues that TL is dynamic and its level changes according to the (real or constructed) threat/fear faced by the society. For example, she discussed data that show that people who felt threatened thought the United States was too loose and this predicted their intention to vote for Trump (and Le Pen in France) (Gelfand and Harrington, 2016).
Part 2 of the book focuses on TL at multiple levels of analysis. This is a much-needed discussion, given the growing recognition that “country” may not be the most appropriate unit of analysis for culture (see, Gelfand et al., 2017). Gelfand talks about within-country variations in a context that she knows best, the United States. The TL map of the United States with its 50 shades of grey (p. 83) indeed attests to the limitation of within-country homogeneity assumption. Gelfand reports findings showing that among the US states, T is associated with religiosity, whereas L is associated with innovation (measured by number of patents), fun (number of entertainment parks), and tolerance for diversity (number of discrimination law suits). There is variation even within states; for example, in a T state of Louisiana, there is New Orleans, which is high on L (Harrington and Gelfand, 2018). Gelfand repeats that TL is dynamic in nature, reminding us the temporary raise in T in the United States after 9/11 (a real threat) or after Trump administration (a constructed threat perception).
Gelfand moves onto discussing TL at the socioeconomic status level. Social class is typically an understudied fault line of culture. According to Gelfand’s findings, T is the mindset of lower class rather than upper class, owing it to the risk-aversive, rule-abiding approach in schooling and parenting in lower class households. TL orientation is reflected in the diverse career choices of students in different social classes. Too much T in lower class is associated with low creativity and ethnocentrism, but too much L in upper class is associated with ethical violations. Gelfand also talks about the so-called culture shock (and school dropout) when T-oriented students from lower class start college in L contexts.
In part 2, the chapter on TL at the organizational level is brilliant. Gelfand provides ample examples of culture clash in mergers and acquisitions and the costs associated with the TL gap in corporate cultures (e.g. lower stock price, longer duration of negotiation). The chapter provides an excellent summary of what T and L organizational cultures and leadership prototypes look like. The tradeoffs of adopting too much T or too much L are clearly shown from real-life examples; for example, T organizations sacrifice flexibility for discipline, initiative for organization, and innovation for predictability (p. 141). The solution for optimum functioning is what Gelfand calls “structured looseness and flexible tightness” (p. 159).
Part 2 concludes with the chapter on TL at the individual level. Gelfand traces the roots of TL orientation back to parenting and schooling practices. Research shows that TL is associated with individual difference variables, such as tolerance for ambiguity, self-monitoring, and self-regulation. Gelfand argues that interpersonal conflicts may arise from behavioral differences rooted in the TL orientation. She asserts that once this is understood, people may become more tolerant to one another.
Part 3, called “applications,” aims at offering solutions to pervasive world problems from the TL perspective. The first chapter in part 3 promotes the big idea of balance between T and L for optimum functioning. Using Goldilocks’ principle as a guiding framework, Gelfand promotes TL balance in parenting, decision-making, governance, and every other area of life. Gelfand provides strong empirical evidence from different disciplines to show that the relationship between T and psychological well-being is curvilinear, and that too much and too little synchrony among birds flying together and among neurons is counterproductive. Using many examples of raising authoritarianism and radicalization in the world, the next chapter discusses what happens when TL balance is ruptured. Rooted in the general principle that people seek T under threat and fear, Gelfand explains why autocratic regimes keep coming back despite the deep suffering they cause (“autocratic recidivism,” Nowak et al., 2007). She also alludes to the vicious cycle between the problem of integration of immigrants in T societies and their becoming more radicalized. The chapter ends with a brief discussion of intervention programs to mend the cultural divides in multicultural societies.
The final chapter ends with the most important take away from the book “By tightening when we’re becoming too loose and loosening when we’re becoming too tight, we can built a better planet” (p. 248). This chapter is full of ideas to build a better world, including intervention programs to combat pervasive problems we are facing, such as climate change, terrorism, violations in social media, and youth substance abuse.
Let me express a few relatively minor criticisms about the book. Regarding the format, the reader misses the full reference of the majority of works cited. Regarding the content, Gelfand may want to elaborate the conceptual differences between social norms and rules. These terms seem to be used interchangeably in some parts of the book, including its title. Invested in this theory for years, Gelfand may have a tendency to see everything in light of TL. Many behaviors of humans and social groups may indeed be associated with TL. But, I wonder, for example, if the scope of the construct should not be stretched to include “unity” to denote T (p. 69) or “choice” to denote L (p. 204).
This book is truly inspiration. It stimulates many ideas for research and practice in diverse fields of Psychology. One of the first future research avenues may be to explore what the “sweet spot” of T and L is in parenting and schooling to maximize academic and life success of children, in leading to maximizing the triple-bottom-line of organizations, and in governing to maximize freedom and safety of citizens. Second, what are the ways or methods through which norms are broken in T cultures and how is it sanctioned especially under low levels of monitoring? Third, how should “structured looseness” and “flexible tightness,” as the cure for optimum functioning, be conceptualized and measured? Fourth, how to avoid or cope with the “constructed sense of fear and threat” imposed by leaders to tighten societies, lower tolerance, and strengthen their personal power?
I would like to end by echoing Richard E Nisbett’s review of the book: “Extremely important…Gelfand has identified and explored a hugely significant aspect of culture that accounts for why and when we fall into step with a group or, alternatively, set off on our own path” (front cover of the book). Michele Gelfand is to be commended and thanked for this invaluable gift to the cross-cultural psychology community and indeed to humanity.