The emergence of COVID-19 dramatically changed social behavior across societies and contexts. Here we study whether social norms also changed. Specifically, we study this question for cultural tightness (the degree to which societies generally have strong norms), specific social norms (e.g. stealing, hand washing), and norms about enforcement, using survey data from 30,431 respondents in 43 countries recorded before and in the early stages following the emergence of COVID-19. Using variation in disease intensity, we shed light on the mechanisms predicting changes in social norm measures. We find evidence that, after the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, hand washing norms increased while tightness and punishing frequency slightly decreased but observe no evidence for a robust change in most other norms. Thus, at least in the short term, our findings suggest that cultures are largely stable to pandemic threats except in those norms, hand washing in this case, that are perceived to be directly relevant to dealing with the collective threat.

Ashoka University Sonipat India

Center for Cultural Evolution Stockholm University Stockholm Sweden

Center for Research in Experimental Economics and Political Decision Making Amsterdam School of Economics University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands

Centre for Culture and Evolution Brunel University London Uxbridge UK

Centro de Investigação e Intervenção Social Instituto Universitário de Lisboa Lisbon Portugal

CEREN EA 7477 Burgundy School of Business Université Bourgogne Franche Comté Dijon France

Collegio Carlo Alberto Turin Italy

DeJusticia Bogotá Colombia

Departamento de Psicología Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú Lima Perú

Department of Anthropology University College London London UK

Department of Culture Politics and Society University of Turin Turin Italy

Department of Economics and Law University of Cassino and Southern Lazio Cassino Italy

Department of Education and Psychology The Open University of Israel Ra'anana Israel

Department of Education and Social Work University of Patras Patras Greece

Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam The Netherlands

Department of Finance and Investment Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University Riyadh Saudi Arabia

Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences Magna Græcia University of Catanzaro Catanzaro Italy

Department of Personality Psychology Yerevan State University Yerevan Armenia

Department of Political Science Trinity College Dublin Dublin Ireland

Department of Psychology American University of Sharjah Sharjah United Arab Emirates

Department of Psychology Koç University Istanbul Turkey

Department of Psychology Monk Prayogshala Mumbai India

Department of Psychology University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands

Department of Psychology University of Cologne Cologne Germany

Department of Psychology University of Nigeria Nsukka Nigeria

Department of Sociology University of South Carolina Columbia USA

Experimental and Computational Economics Lab Universidad San Francisco de Quito Quito Ecuador

Facultad de Psicología Universidad Nacional de Córdoba Córdoba Argentina

Faculty of Management Koç University Istanbul Turkey

Faculty of Medicine University of Colombo Colombo Sri Lanka

Faculty of Philosophy University of Banja Luka Banja Luka Bosnia and Herzegovina

Faculty of Psychology Universitas Airlangga Surabaya Indonesia

Faculty of Psychology University of Iceland Reykjavik Iceland

Faculty of Social Sciences Social Psychology University of Helsinki Helsinki Finland

Gies College of Business University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Champaign USA

Graduate School of Business and Department of Psychology Stanford University Stanford USA

Grupo Interdisciplinar de Sistemas Complejos Departamento de Matemáticas Universidad Carlos 3 de Madrid Leganés Spain

Guangzhou University Guangzhou P R China

Hanoi National University of Education Hanoi Vietnam

HSE University Moscow Russia

HUN REN Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology Research Centre of Natural Sciences Budapest Hungary

Institute for Analytical Sociology Linköping University Linköping Sweden

Institute for Futures Studies Stockholm Sweden

Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies National Research Council of Italy Rome Italy

Institute of Information Processing and Decision Making University of Haifa Haifa Israel

Institute of Psychology Czech Academy of Sciences Brno Czech Republic

Institute of Psychology Karoli Gáspár University of the Reformed Churches Budapest Hungary

Institute of Psychology University of Greifswald Greifswald Germany

Instituto de Biocomputación y Física de Sistemas Complejos Universidad de Zaragoza Zaragoza Spain

Instituto de Ciências Sociais Universidade de Lisboa Lisboa Portugal

Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas ; CABA Córdoba Argentina

Kyiv International Institute of Sociology Kyiv Ukraine

Leadership and Management Amsterdam Business School University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands

Malardalens University Vasteras Sweden

Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences The University of Melbourne Melbourne Australia

Nagoya University Nagoya Japan

Northeastern University Boston USA

Osaka Metropolitan University Osaka Japan

POLLSTER Kiev Ukraine

Presbyterian Mackenzie University São Paulo Brazil

Queen's University at Kingston Ontario Canada

Ritsumeikan University Shiga Japan

Royal Holloway University of London Egham UK

School of Economics Universidad San Francisco de Quito Quito Ecuador

School of Natural Sciences and Health Tallinn University Tallinn Estonia

School of Psychology University of Kent Canterbury UK

Stern School of Business New York University New York USA

Sunway University Bandar Sunway Malaysia

SWPS University Warsaw Poland

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem Israel

United States International University Africa Nairobi Kenya

Universal College Bangladesh Dhaka Bangladesh

Universidad de los Andes Bogota Colombia

Universidad de los Andes Santiago Chile

Universidad Diego Portales Santiago Chile

University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst USA

Vienna University of Economics and Business Vienna Austria

Waseda University Tokyo Japan

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Bicchieri, C.

Elster, J.

Gelfand MJ, et al. Differences between tight and loose cultures: a 33-nation study. Science. 2011;332:1100–1104. doi: 10.1126/science.1197754. PubMed DOI

Pelto PJ. The differences between “tight” and “loose” societies. Trans.-action. 1968;5:37–40.

Eriksson K, et al. Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies. Nat. Commun. 2021;12:1481. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21602-9. PubMed DOI PMC

Chua RYJ, Huang KG, Jin M. Mapping cultural tightness and its links to innovation, urbanization, and happiness across 31 provinces in China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2019;116:6720–6725. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1815723116. PubMed DOI PMC

Harrington JR, Gelfand MJ. Tightness–looseness across the 50 united states. Proc. Natl Acad Sci. USA. 2014;111:7990–7995. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1317937111. PubMed DOI PMC

Jackson JC, Gelfand M, Ember CR. A global analysis of cultural tightness in non-industrial societies. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2020;287:20201036. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2020.1036. PubMed DOI PMC

Chua RYJ, Roth Y, Lemoine J-F. The impact of culture on creativity: how cultural tightness and cultural distance affect global innovation crowdsourcing work. Adm. Sci. Q. 2015;60:189–227. doi: 10.1177/0001839214563595. DOI

Jackson JC, Gelfand M, De S, Fox A. The loosening of American culture over 200 years is associated with a creativity–order trade-off. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2019;3:244–250. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0516-z. PubMed DOI

Jackson JC, et al. Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0221953. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221953. PubMed DOI PMC

Gelfand MJ, et al. The relationship between cultural tightness–looseness and COVID-19 cases and deaths: a global analysis. Lancet Planet. Health. 2021;5:e135–e144. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30301-6. PubMed DOI PMC

Szekely A, et al. Evidence from a long-term experiment that collective risks change social norms and promote cooperation. Nat. Commun. 2021;12:5452. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-25734-w. PubMed DOI PMC

Vriens, E., Andrighetto, G. & Tummolini, L. Risk, sanctions and norm change: the formation and decay of social distancing norms. PubMed PMC

Roos P, Gelfand M, Nau D, Lun J. Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: an evolutionary basis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2015;129:14–23. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.01.003. DOI

Nunn, N. On the Causes and consequences of cross-cultural differences: an economic perspective. in

Algan Y, Cahuc P. Inherited trust and growth. Am. Econ. Rev. 2010;100:2060–2092. doi: 10.1257/aer.100.5.2060. DOI

Axelrod R. An evolutionary approach to norms. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 1986;80:1095–1111. doi: 10.2307/1960858. DOI

Price RH, Bouffard DL. Behavioral appropriateness and situational constraint as dimensions of social behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1974;30:579–586. doi: 10.1037/h0037037. DOI

Eriksson K, Andersson PA, Strimling P. Moderators of the disapproval of peer punishment. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 2016;19:152–168. doi: 10.1177/1368430215583519. DOI

Griskevicius V, Goldstein NJ, Mortensen CR, Cialdini RB, Kenrick DT. Going along versus going alone: when fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2006;91:281–294. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.2.281. PubMed DOI

Hale, T. et al. A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID−19 Government Response Tracker). PubMed

Lakens D. Equivalence tests: a practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2017;8:355–362. doi: 10.1177/1948550617697177. PubMed DOI PMC

Lakens D, Scheel AM, Isager PM. Equivalence testing for psychological research: a tutorial. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2018;1:259–269. doi: 10.1177/2515245918770963. DOI

Schuirmann DJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 1987;15:657–680. doi: 10.1007/BF01068419. PubMed DOI

Cohen, J.

Sosis R, Kress HC, Boster JS. Scars for war: evaluating alternative signaling explanations for cross-cultural variance in ritual costs. Evol. Hum. Behav. 2007;28:234–247. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.02.007. DOI

Roes FL, Raymond M. Belief in moralizing gods. Evol. Hum. Behav. 2003;24:126–135. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00134-4. DOI

Gelfand, M. J. Cultural evolutionary mismatches in response to collective threat.

Gelfand, M. J., Gavrilets, S. & Nunn, N. Norm dynamics: Interdisciplinary perspectives on social norm emergence, persistence, and change. PubMed

Barclay P, Benard S. The effects of social vs. asocial threats on group cooperation and manipulation of perceived threats. Evol. Hum. Sci. 2020;2:e54. doi: 10.1017/ehs.2020.48. PubMed DOI PMC

Gavrilets S. Collective action and the collaborative brain. J. R. Soc. Interface. 2015;12:20141067. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2014.1067. PubMed DOI PMC

Baddeley M. Hoarding in the age of COVID-19. J. Behav. Econ. Policy. 2020;4:69–75.

Syahrivar J, Genoveva G, Chairy C, Manurung SP. COVID-19-induced hoarding intention among the educated segment in Indonesia. SAGE Open. 2021;11:21582440211016904. doi: 10.1177/21582440211016904. DOI

Lo Iacono S, Przepiorka W, Buskens V, Corten R, van de Rijt A. COVID-19 vulnerability and perceived norm violations predict loss of social trust: a pre-post study. Soc. Sci. Med. 2021;291:114513. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114513. PubMed DOI PMC

Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L. & Ehrhart, K. H. Methodological issues in cross-cultural organizational research. in

van de Vijver, F. J. R. & Leung, K.

Ritchie, H. et al. Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19).