IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0330983.html

Cultural tightness and scientific capacity: A cross-national study of their synergistic and conflicting roles in COVID-19 pandemic outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Chris William Callaghan

Abstract

Despite their advanced scientific capacity, many nations experienced high COVID-19 cases and deaths during the pre-vaccine phase of the pandemic. In contrast, some countries with tighter cultural norms, where social behaviour is more strongly regulated, appear to have controlled the spread of the virus more effectively. This creates a paradox: the same norm strength that may support compliance with public-health measures may also be less conducive to ideation, creativity, and scientific output. While prior research has associated cultural tightness with lower COVID-19 cases and deaths, its relationship with scientific capacity remains underexplored. This study examines associations between scientific capacity, cultural tightness, and COVID-19 outcomes using cross-national data. Findings show that scientific capacity has no robust direct protective association with pre-vaccine COVID-19 cases or deaths once cultural tightness and structural covariates are included. In contrast, Gelfand’s measure of cultural tightness is consistently associated with lower cases and deaths. These findings suggest that scientific knowledge alone does not automatically translate into population-level protection, and that norm strength, behavioural coordination, and knowledge-to-action capacity may be important conditions of pandemic resilience.

Suggested Citation

  • Chris William Callaghan, 2026. "Cultural tightness and scientific capacity: A cross-national study of their synergistic and conflicting roles in COVID-19 pandemic outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(7), pages 1-27, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0330983
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330983
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0330983
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0330983&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0330983?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0330983. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.