Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a global health crisis, yet certain countries have had far more success in limiting COVID-19 cases and deaths. We suggest that collective threats require a tremendous amount of coordination, and that strict adherence to social norms is a key mechanism that enables groups to do so. Here we examine how the strength of social norms—or cultural tightness–looseness—was associated with countries' success in limiting cases and deaths by October, 2020. We expected that tight cultures, which have strict norms and punishments for deviance, would have fewer cases and deaths per million as compared with loose cultures, which have weaker norms and are more permissive. Methods: We estimated the relationship between cultural tightness–looseness and COVID-19 case and mortality rates as of Oct 16, 2020, using ordinary least squares regression. We fit a series of stepwise models to capture whether cultural tightness–looseness explained variation in case and death rates controlling for under-reporting, demographics, geopolitical factors, other cultural dimensions, and climate. Findings: The results indicated that, compared with nations with high levels of cultural tightness, nations with high levels of cultural looseness are estimated to have had 4·99 times the number of cases (7132 per million vs 1428 per million, respectively) and 8·71 times the number of deaths (183 per million vs 21 per million, respectively), taking into account a number of controls. A formal evolutionary game theoretic model suggested that tight groups cooperate much faster under threat and have higher survival rates than loose groups. The results suggest that tightening social norms might confer an evolutionary advantage in times of collective threat. Interpretation: Nations that are tight and abide by strict norms have had more success than those that are looser as of the October, 2020. New interventions are needed to help countries tighten social norms as they continue to battle COVID-19 and other collective threats. Funding: Office of Naval Research, US Navy.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | e135-e144 |
Number of pages | 10 |
Journal | The Lancet Planetary Health |
Volume | 5 |
Issue number | 3 |
Early online date | 29 Jan 2021 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Mar 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This research was funded in part by Office of Naval Research grant N000141912407 (MJG). The information in this Article does not imply or constitute an endorsement of the views therein by the Office of Naval Research, US Navy, or Department of Defense.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
Funding
This research was funded in part by Office of Naval Research grant N000141912407 (MJG). The information in this Article does not imply or constitute an endorsement of the views therein by the Office of Naval Research, US Navy, or Department of Defense.
Funders | Funder number |
---|---|
Office of Naval Research | N000141912407 |
Office of Naval Research |