The preindustrial family structure instilled family members with values that passed through generations and impact today's political attitudes and policies. Three studies show that ancestral kinship structure predicts right-wing cultural attitudes and, among those less engaged in politics, left-wing economic attitudes (though controlling for the country of residence removes this prediction). Stronger country-level ancestral kinship strength also increases anti-LGBT policies and welfare spending. This work indicates that political beliefs are rooted in the value systems and familial institutions created by our forebears.

The preindustrial family structure instilled family members with values that passed through generations and impact today's political attitudes and policies. Three studies show that ancestral kinship structure predicts right-wing cultural attitudes and, among those less engaged in politics, left-wing economic attitudes (though controlling for the country of residence removes this prediction). Stronger country-level ancestral kinship strength also increases anti-LGBT policies and welfare spending. This work indicates that political beliefs are rooted in the value systems and familial institutions created by our forebears.

The preindustrial family structure instilled family members with values that passed through generations and impact today's political attitudes and policies. Three studies show that ancestral kinship structure predicts right-wing cultural attitudes and, among those less engaged in politics, left-wing economic attitudes (though controlling for the country of residence removes this prediction). Stronger country-level ancestral kinship strength also increases anti-LGBT policies and welfare spending. This work indicates that political beliefs are rooted in the value systems and familial institutions created by our forebears.

The purpose of the present study is to provide insight on the debate concerning how best to organize societies: with more freedom (looseness) or with more constraint (tightness). In a comparison of 32 nations, Harrington, Boski, and Gelfand examine the relationship between tightness/looseness and three dimensions of societal well-being: psychosocial, health, and political/economic outcomes. Findings indicate that excessive constraint and/or freedom contribute to poorer psychosocial, health, and economic/political outcomes, as well as overall national-level well-being. These results suggest that a balance of freedom and constraint is associated with optimal societal well-being.

The purpose of the present study is to provide insight on the debate concerning how best to organize societies: with more freedom (looseness) or with more constraint (tightness). In a comparison of 32 nations, Harrington, Boski, and Gelfand examine the relationship between tightness/looseness and three dimensions of societal well-being: psychosocial, health, and political/economic outcomes. Findings indicate that excessive constraint and/or freedom contribute to poorer psychosocial, health, and economic/political outcomes, as well as overall national-level well-being. These results suggest that a balance of freedom and constraint is associated with optimal societal well-being.

The purpose of the present study is to provide insight on the debate concerning how best to organize societies: with more freedom (looseness) or with more constraint (tightness). In a comparison of 32 nations, Harrington, Boski, and Gelfand examine the relationship between tightness/looseness and three dimensions of societal well-being: psychosocial, health, and political/economic outcomes. Findings indicate that excessive constraint and/or freedom contribute to poorer psychosocial, health, and economic/political outcomes, as well as overall national-level well-being. These results suggest that a balance of freedom and constraint is associated with optimal societal well-being.

This study draws upon theory from Marx, Weber, postmaterialism, individualism and system justification to explore cultural attitudes and beliefs surroudning competition. Authors test relationships between the attitudes towards competition and economic and religious variables.

Authors contend that many of the differences across the 50 states can be attributed to the degree to which social entities are "tight" (have many strongly enforced rules and little tolerance to deviance) or "loose" (have few strongly enforced rules and greater tolerance for deviance). Significant correlations were found between many state characteristics and tightness-looseness.

The purpose of the present study is to provide insight on the debate concerning how best to organize societies: with more freedom (looseness) or with more constraint (tightness). In a comparison of 32 nations, Harrington, Boski, and Gelfand examine the relationship between tightness/looseness and three dimensions of societal well-being: psychosocial, health, and political/economic outcomes. Findings indicate that excessive constraint and/or freedom contribute to poorer psychosocial, health, and economic/political outcomes, as well as overall national-level well-being. These results suggest that a balance of freedom and constraint is associated with optimal societal well-being.

The purpose of the present study is to provide insight on the debate concerning how best to organize societies: with more freedom (looseness) or with more constraint (tightness). In a comparison of 32 nations, Harrington, Boski, and Gelfand examine the relationship between tightness/looseness and three dimensions of societal well-being: psychosocial, health, and political/economic outcomes. Findings indicate that excessive constraint and/or freedom contribute to poorer psychosocial, health, and economic/political outcomes, as well as overall national-level well-being. These results suggest that a balance of freedom and constraint is associated with optimal societal well-being.