Van de Vliert's tour de force illustrates an important interaction between ecology and societal resources that replicates across numerous studies. The extent to which nations are able to use monetary resources to meet climatic demands leads to fundamentally different psychological and behavioral adaptations. The research is consistent with our work on cultural tightness–looseness, which shows that other aspects of the ecology that threaten human survival (e.g., resource scarcity, natural disasters, disease, territorial threats) can be met with other societal resources, namely, the strength of social norms and punishments (Gelfand et al. Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D'Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr, Fischer, Fülöp, Georgas, Kashima, Kashima, Kim, Lempereur, Marquez, Othman, Overlaet, Panagiotopoulou, Peltzer, Perez-Florizno, Ponomarenko, Realo, Schei, Schmitt, Smith, Soomro, Szabo, Taveesin, Toyama, Van de Vliert, Vohra, Ward and Yamaguchi2011), which affects a wide range of cultural differences.
Nonetheless, both our fieldwork and Van de Vliert's are limited, as he aptly notes, given the inherent correlational nature of cross-cultural fieldwork. Can we use other research methods that go beyond correlational studies to ascertain whether ecology causes differences in freedom of self-expression, ingroup favoritism, and outgroup derogation? Testing a theory with multiple methodologies affords more confidence in results, particularly in cross-cultural research that presents many rival hypotheses (Gelfand et al. Reference Gelfand, Raver, Holcombe Ehrhart and Rogelberg2002). To that end, we (Lun et al. Reference Lun, Gelfand and Mohr2012) implemented an ecological priming paradigm to examine whether one can prime ecological and historical threats that occur naturally in the real world in controlled laboratory settings. By making societal threats temporarily accessible, we can observe the impact of ecology on psychological processes and examine whether the effects are similar to those found in large-scale correlational studies. Although scholars have long argued that cultural differences can be primed using classic social cognition methods (Oyserman & Lee Reference Oyserman and Lee2008; Trafimow et al. Reference Trafimow, Triandis and Goto1991), the application of priming methods to study ecological influences on behavior is surprisingly limited (see Mortensen et al. Reference Mortensen, Becker, Ackerman, Neuberg and Kenrick2010).
In our field research, we showed that cultures vary considerably in the degree to which they are tight – that is, have strong norms and a low tolerance for deviant behavior – versus loose – that is, have weak norms and a high tolerance for deviant behavior (Gelfand et al. Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D'Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr, Fischer, Fülöp, Georgas, Kashima, Kashima, Kim, Lempereur, Marquez, Othman, Overlaet, Panagiotopoulou, Peltzer, Perez-Florizno, Ponomarenko, Realo, Schei, Schmitt, Smith, Soomro, Szabo, Taveesin, Toyama, Van de Vliert, Vohra, Ward and Yamaguchi2011). Tightness–looseness is related to a broad array of ecological and human-made threats that nations have (or have not) historically encountered. As compared to loose cultures, tight cultures have greater resource scarcity, more vulnerability to natural disasters, higher disease prevalence, higher population density, and a greater degree of threats from neighboring countries. Psychologically speaking, people in tight cultures have more of a prevention focus (Higgins Reference Higgins1996) and have greater impulse control (Baumeister & Heatherton Reference Baumeister and Heatherton1996), need for structure (Neuberg & Newsom Reference Neuberg and Newsom1993), and self-monitoring (Snyder & Gangestad Reference Snyder and Gangestad1986) as compared to people in loose cultures. In tight cultures, people also find socially deviant behavior much less justifiable and have more ethnocentric attitudes (Gelfand et al. Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D'Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr, Fischer, Fülöp, Georgas, Kashima, Kashima, Kim, Lempereur, Marquez, Othman, Overlaet, Panagiotopoulou, Peltzer, Perez-Florizno, Ponomarenko, Realo, Schei, Schmitt, Smith, Soomro, Szabo, Taveesin, Toyama, Van de Vliert, Vohra, Ward and Yamaguchi2011).
To establish a causal link between ecology and psychological processes, we conducted a series of studies in which we made ecological and societal threats accessible in the laboratory. In one study, we tested whether high versus low population density would make people more or less tolerant of socially deviant behavior (e.g., taking drugs, having casual sex, littering, stealing, and talking loudly at a library). We randomly assigned participants to read one of the two versions of an article presumably to be printed in the local school newspaper. The article discussed how the campus of the participants' university is one of the highest (or lowest) in population density compared to other similar universities. The message was supported by statistical graphs and quotes of student life throughout the article. We then asked participants questions regarding social deviance and assessed ethnocentric attitudes. Consistent with the field data, those who were primed to think that their university campus has high population density were more likely to consider socially deviant behavior to be less justifiable than those primed with low population density. In addition, the measure of ethnocentric attitudes adapted from the Pew Global Attitudes Project (reported in Gelfand et al. Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D'Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr, Fischer, Fülöp, Georgas, Kashima, Kashima, Kim, Lempereur, Marquez, Othman, Overlaet, Panagiotopoulou, Peltzer, Perez-Florizno, Ponomarenko, Realo, Schei, Schmitt, Smith, Soomro, Szabo, Taveesin, Toyama, Van de Vliert, Vohra, Ward and Yamaguchi2011) showed that people primed with high population density were more likely to agree with such statements as “We should restrict and control entry of people into our country more than we do now”; “When jobs are scarce, employers should give priority to American people over immigrants”; “Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others”; and “Our way of life needs to be protected against foreign influence” than those primed with low population density.
We conducted another experimental study on a different societal threat that we examined naturally in the field, namely, external threats to one's territory, and found similar effects. Participants were randomly assigned to read a school newspaper article, much like the one in the population density study, about a terrorist threat warning system that was being implemented either at one's own university or at another university in a different country. Consistent with our field research on territorial threats (Gelfand et al. Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D'Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr, Fischer, Fülöp, Georgas, Kashima, Kashima, Kim, Lempereur, Marquez, Othman, Overlaet, Panagiotopoulou, Peltzer, Perez-Florizno, Ponomarenko, Realo, Schei, Schmitt, Smith, Soomro, Szabo, Taveesin, Toyama, Van de Vliert, Vohra, Ward and Yamaguchi2011), we found that individuals who were primed with threats to their own territory were much tighter than those primed with threats to another country's territory; they showed more ethnocentric attitudes and a stronger desire to punish social norm violators. They also showed greater implicit negative attitudes toward a socially marginalized group (i.e., overweight people) than a nonmarginalized group (i.e., slim people). As another example, we have expanded the ecological priming paradigm to examine additional threats (i.e., pathogens) using quasi-experimental designs. We approached individuals who were either about to see the movie Contagion (a movie about the spread of pathogens) or who had just seen the movie outside of movie theaters. As we predicted, people who had just seen the movie Contagion were much tighter; they had more negative reactions to social deviance.
In all, these examples of the ecological priming paradigm show that ecological conditions that form the macro basis of cultural differences across nations can be primed in the laboratory. Although experimental research has its own limitations, it can provide convergent evidence regarding the role of ecology in predicting psychological processes that complements correlational research reported in large-scale cross-cultural field studies.
Van de Vliert's tour de force illustrates an important interaction between ecology and societal resources that replicates across numerous studies. The extent to which nations are able to use monetary resources to meet climatic demands leads to fundamentally different psychological and behavioral adaptations. The research is consistent with our work on cultural tightness–looseness, which shows that other aspects of the ecology that threaten human survival (e.g., resource scarcity, natural disasters, disease, territorial threats) can be met with other societal resources, namely, the strength of social norms and punishments (Gelfand et al. Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D'Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr, Fischer, Fülöp, Georgas, Kashima, Kashima, Kim, Lempereur, Marquez, Othman, Overlaet, Panagiotopoulou, Peltzer, Perez-Florizno, Ponomarenko, Realo, Schei, Schmitt, Smith, Soomro, Szabo, Taveesin, Toyama, Van de Vliert, Vohra, Ward and Yamaguchi2011), which affects a wide range of cultural differences.
Nonetheless, both our fieldwork and Van de Vliert's are limited, as he aptly notes, given the inherent correlational nature of cross-cultural fieldwork. Can we use other research methods that go beyond correlational studies to ascertain whether ecology causes differences in freedom of self-expression, ingroup favoritism, and outgroup derogation? Testing a theory with multiple methodologies affords more confidence in results, particularly in cross-cultural research that presents many rival hypotheses (Gelfand et al. Reference Gelfand, Raver, Holcombe Ehrhart and Rogelberg2002). To that end, we (Lun et al. Reference Lun, Gelfand and Mohr2012) implemented an ecological priming paradigm to examine whether one can prime ecological and historical threats that occur naturally in the real world in controlled laboratory settings. By making societal threats temporarily accessible, we can observe the impact of ecology on psychological processes and examine whether the effects are similar to those found in large-scale correlational studies. Although scholars have long argued that cultural differences can be primed using classic social cognition methods (Oyserman & Lee Reference Oyserman and Lee2008; Trafimow et al. Reference Trafimow, Triandis and Goto1991), the application of priming methods to study ecological influences on behavior is surprisingly limited (see Mortensen et al. Reference Mortensen, Becker, Ackerman, Neuberg and Kenrick2010).
In our field research, we showed that cultures vary considerably in the degree to which they are tight – that is, have strong norms and a low tolerance for deviant behavior – versus loose – that is, have weak norms and a high tolerance for deviant behavior (Gelfand et al. Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D'Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr, Fischer, Fülöp, Georgas, Kashima, Kashima, Kim, Lempereur, Marquez, Othman, Overlaet, Panagiotopoulou, Peltzer, Perez-Florizno, Ponomarenko, Realo, Schei, Schmitt, Smith, Soomro, Szabo, Taveesin, Toyama, Van de Vliert, Vohra, Ward and Yamaguchi2011). Tightness–looseness is related to a broad array of ecological and human-made threats that nations have (or have not) historically encountered. As compared to loose cultures, tight cultures have greater resource scarcity, more vulnerability to natural disasters, higher disease prevalence, higher population density, and a greater degree of threats from neighboring countries. Psychologically speaking, people in tight cultures have more of a prevention focus (Higgins Reference Higgins1996) and have greater impulse control (Baumeister & Heatherton Reference Baumeister and Heatherton1996), need for structure (Neuberg & Newsom Reference Neuberg and Newsom1993), and self-monitoring (Snyder & Gangestad Reference Snyder and Gangestad1986) as compared to people in loose cultures. In tight cultures, people also find socially deviant behavior much less justifiable and have more ethnocentric attitudes (Gelfand et al. Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D'Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr, Fischer, Fülöp, Georgas, Kashima, Kashima, Kim, Lempereur, Marquez, Othman, Overlaet, Panagiotopoulou, Peltzer, Perez-Florizno, Ponomarenko, Realo, Schei, Schmitt, Smith, Soomro, Szabo, Taveesin, Toyama, Van de Vliert, Vohra, Ward and Yamaguchi2011).
To establish a causal link between ecology and psychological processes, we conducted a series of studies in which we made ecological and societal threats accessible in the laboratory. In one study, we tested whether high versus low population density would make people more or less tolerant of socially deviant behavior (e.g., taking drugs, having casual sex, littering, stealing, and talking loudly at a library). We randomly assigned participants to read one of the two versions of an article presumably to be printed in the local school newspaper. The article discussed how the campus of the participants' university is one of the highest (or lowest) in population density compared to other similar universities. The message was supported by statistical graphs and quotes of student life throughout the article. We then asked participants questions regarding social deviance and assessed ethnocentric attitudes. Consistent with the field data, those who were primed to think that their university campus has high population density were more likely to consider socially deviant behavior to be less justifiable than those primed with low population density. In addition, the measure of ethnocentric attitudes adapted from the Pew Global Attitudes Project (reported in Gelfand et al. Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D'Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr, Fischer, Fülöp, Georgas, Kashima, Kashima, Kim, Lempereur, Marquez, Othman, Overlaet, Panagiotopoulou, Peltzer, Perez-Florizno, Ponomarenko, Realo, Schei, Schmitt, Smith, Soomro, Szabo, Taveesin, Toyama, Van de Vliert, Vohra, Ward and Yamaguchi2011) showed that people primed with high population density were more likely to agree with such statements as “We should restrict and control entry of people into our country more than we do now”; “When jobs are scarce, employers should give priority to American people over immigrants”; “Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others”; and “Our way of life needs to be protected against foreign influence” than those primed with low population density.
We conducted another experimental study on a different societal threat that we examined naturally in the field, namely, external threats to one's territory, and found similar effects. Participants were randomly assigned to read a school newspaper article, much like the one in the population density study, about a terrorist threat warning system that was being implemented either at one's own university or at another university in a different country. Consistent with our field research on territorial threats (Gelfand et al. Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D'Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr, Fischer, Fülöp, Georgas, Kashima, Kashima, Kim, Lempereur, Marquez, Othman, Overlaet, Panagiotopoulou, Peltzer, Perez-Florizno, Ponomarenko, Realo, Schei, Schmitt, Smith, Soomro, Szabo, Taveesin, Toyama, Van de Vliert, Vohra, Ward and Yamaguchi2011), we found that individuals who were primed with threats to their own territory were much tighter than those primed with threats to another country's territory; they showed more ethnocentric attitudes and a stronger desire to punish social norm violators. They also showed greater implicit negative attitudes toward a socially marginalized group (i.e., overweight people) than a nonmarginalized group (i.e., slim people). As another example, we have expanded the ecological priming paradigm to examine additional threats (i.e., pathogens) using quasi-experimental designs. We approached individuals who were either about to see the movie Contagion (a movie about the spread of pathogens) or who had just seen the movie outside of movie theaters. As we predicted, people who had just seen the movie Contagion were much tighter; they had more negative reactions to social deviance.
In all, these examples of the ecological priming paradigm show that ecological conditions that form the macro basis of cultural differences across nations can be primed in the laboratory. Although experimental research has its own limitations, it can provide convergent evidence regarding the role of ecology in predicting psychological processes that complements correlational research reported in large-scale cross-cultural field studies.