Table 2.
Predictive validity of tightness-looseness on perceptions of LGBT tolerance, religious activities, governmental control, personality, and happiness (results of multilevel regression models)
| Cultural tightness as the Level 2 predictor | |||||||
| Full sample | Local only | ||||||
| Outcome variables | γ 01 (P) | 95%CI | R2 | γ 01 (P) | 95%CI | R2 | Correlations with cultural tightness in United States, r(P)* |
| Perceptions of governmental control | 0.06(0.00) | 0.03, 0.08 | 0.31 | 0.06(0.00) | 0.02, 0.11 | 0.23 | |
| Perceptions of societal tolerance toward LGBT community | 0.25(0.00) | 0.19, 0.32 | 0.66 | 0.27(0.00) | 0.20, 0.33 | 0.64 | 0.81(<0.001)† |
| Perceptions of prevalence of religious activities | 0.07(0.24) | −0.04, 0.18 | 0.04 | 0.08(0.18) | −0.04, 0.19 | 0.05 | −0.42(<0.01)‡ |
| Personality | |||||||
| Openness to experience | −0.03(0.13) | −0.07, 0.01 | 0.07 | −0.08(0.02) | −0.14, −0.01 | 0.15 | −0.37(<0.001) |
| Conscientiousness | 0.14(0.00) | 0.09, 0.19 | 0.52 | 0.16(0.00) | 0.10, 0.21 | 0.43 | 0.40(<0.001) |
| Neuroticism | −0.03(0.31) | −0.08, 0.03 | 0.04 | −0.04(0.22) | −0.11, 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.20(0.16) |
| Extraversion | −0.09(0.03) | −0.17–0.01 | 0.14 | −0.08(0.04) | −0.15, −0.00 | 0.11 | 0.27(0.06) |
| Agreeableness | 0.01(0.57) | −0.03, 0.05 | 0.01 | −0.01(0.87) | −0.06, 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.34(0.006) |
| Self-monitoring | 0.01(0.04) | 0.00, 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.02(0.03) | 0.00, 0.03 | 0.14 | |
| Happiness | |||||||
| Life satisfaction§ | 0.25(0.00) | 0.18, 0.33 | 0.76 | 0.22(0.00) | 0.12, 0.33 | 0.66 | −0.61(0.00) |
| Positive affect (yesterday)§ | 0.01(0.03) | 0.00, 0.02 | 0.28 | 0.02(0.01) | 0.00, 0.03 | 0.01 | |
| Negative affect (yesterday)§ | −0.05(0.00) | −0.06, −0.04 | 0.77 | −0.05(0.00) | −0.07, −0.03 | 0.57 | |
| Life satisfaction—General Social Survey China¶ | 0.03(0.05) | 0.00, 0.05 | 0.07 | ||||
All analyses used provincial level cultural tightness score reported earlier in the paper. Personality variables were collected in Round 3, n = 3,495. For local only outcome variables, we used data from participants who reported they were born and raised in the province. n = 1,401. Life satisfaction data were collected in both Round 1 and Round 2, (full sample: n = 8,167; local respondents only: n = 3,074). Positive affect and negative affect data were collected in Round 1 (Full sample: n = 4,863, local respondents only: n = 1,897).
For comparison, correlation coefficients between personality and happiness in the United States were taken from Harrington and Gelfand (3).
Desire not to have same-sex marriage.
Baron and Straus’s social disorganization index. Percentage of population lacking religious affiliation.
The results are controlled for individual-level demographic variables (gender, age, and education) and provincial level GDP per capita. Detailed regression reports with control variables can be found in SI Appendix, Table S8.
Life satisfaction measure was taken from the General Social Survey-China (2013), (n = 6,795), total number of provinces is 28 (missing data from Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hainan). The results are controlled for individual-level demographic variables (gender, age, education, and household annual income). Detailed regression reports with control variables can be found in SI Appendix, Table S8.