1210451

research-article2023
PSPXXX10.1177/01461672231210451Personality and Social Psychology BulletinWei et al.

Empirical Research Paper

Personality and Social

People in Tight Cultures and Tight

Psychology Bulletin
1­–18
© 2023 by the Society for Personality
Situations Wear Masks More: Evidence and Social Psychology, Inc
Article reuse guidelines:

From Three Large-Scale Studies in China sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/01461672231210451
https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231210451
journals.sagepub.com/home/pspb

Liuqing Wei1 , Alexander Scott English2 , Thomas Talhelm3 ,

Xiaoyuan Li4, Xuemin Zhang5, and Shuang Wang6

Abstract
Studies have found large differences in masks use during the pandemic. We found evidence that cultural tightness explains
mask use differences and this association was more robust in tight situations like subways. In Study 1, we observed 23,551
people’s actual mask use in public places around China. People wore masks more in tight situations; however, differences
did not extend to outdoor streets and public parks, where norms are looser. We replicated this finding using a data
from 15,985 people across China. Finally, in a preregistered study we observed mask use with the removal of COVID-19
restrictions, people still wore masks more in tight situations like subways than in loose situations of parks. These findings
suggest that norm tightness has a lasting association with people’s health-protective behaviors, especially in tight situations.
It provides insight into how different cultures might respond with future pandemics and in what situations people adopt
health-protective behaviors.

Keywords
COVID-19, tightness–looseness, social norms, mask wearing

Received October 6, 2022; revision accepted October 11, 2023

In June 2020, the World Health Organization recommended
wearing masks in public to limit the spread of COVID-19.
Yet, mask use has varied widely. For example, from April to
October 2020, mask use was higher in Italy and Japan than in
Denmark and Sweden (Badillo-Goicoechea et al., 2021).
Mask use also varies within countries. An observational
study in the United States found that people in rural areas
(20%) wore masks less than people in cities (47%) and sub-
urbs (49%; Haischer et al., 2020). This study explores why.
and 73 hospitalized patients (National Health Commission of
the People’s Republic of China, 2020a). During the whole
period of our observation in Study 1 (from May 25, 2020 to
June 28, 2020), there were only 345 new local cases in China.
Thus, China has entered the “drag on” phase of the virus.
In March 2023, we conducted follow-up observations
(Study 3), at that time China had lifted all restrictions on
COVID-19. Millions of Chinese people were infected
COVID-19 and recovered from it (Chinese Government,

Vigilance During the “Drag On” Phase 1

Hubei University, China
of the Pandemic
2
Wenzhou-Kean University, China
3
The University of Chicago, IL, USA
4
Two obvious factors that could explain differences in mask City University of Macau, China
5
use are mask policies and objective risk. There is some evi- Beijing Normal University, China
6
The Education University of Hong Kong, China
dence that more people wear masks when COVID-19 cases
are high (English et al., 2022). There is evidence that at least Corresponding Authors:
some people still respond to high COVID-19 risk by chang- Alexander Scott English, School of Psychology, Wenzhou-Kean University,
Daxue Road No. 88, Wenzhou 325060, China.
ing their behavior, even when there is no legal requirement Email: AEnglish@kean.edu
(Lopes, 2022).
Yet, the COVID-19 pandemic has dragged on, through Xuemin Zhang, Beijing Key Lab of Applied Experimental Psychology,
Faculty of Psychology, and State Key Laboratory of Cognitive
periods of lower risk. After the initial outbreak, China intro- Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Xinjiekouwai
duced strict lockdowns and mask mandates. On May 27, Street No. 19, Beijing 100875, China.
2020, Mainland China had only two new confirmed cases Email: xmzhang@bnu.edu.cn
2 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
2023), but mask use was still a common practice. In this
study, the “drag on” phase refers to a long period during
which the risk of getting infected by COVID-19 is much
lower, but the risk is not completely relieved.
We posit that mask use is a valuable feature of the “drag
on” phase even after vaccinations, because it is (a) an observ-
able behavior representing COVID-19 norm, and (b) in tight
cultures, individuals must follow the recommendations of
the public health officials like wearing masks on public
transportation or indoor shopping malls. On the opposite
end, in a loose culture like the United States, United
Kingdom, or Denmark, masks might fade out of public
quicker even on public transportation or indoors, hence it is
up to the individuals’ discretion to wear a mask or not.
However, in tight norm societies, masks still symbolize vary-
ing degrees of the “drag on” phase and tolerance of residents
in these cultures (Lopes, 2022).
Mask Policies
Mask policies are another obvious cause of differences. For
example, in the United States, many cities have had stricter
mask policies than rural areas. In this study, we find evidence
that culture matters beyond mask policies. We do this in two
ways. First, we measure differences within a single country,
which holds constant national mask policies. Second, to
account for regional differences in mask policies, we gath-
ered data on mask policies across the seven cities where we
observed people’s mask use. The comparison shows that the
policies had few variations between cities (Table S1).
Study Overview
In three studies, we investigated what economic and cultural
factors were associated with people’s mask use in the pandemic
“drag on” phase in China, and whether the associations were
more robust in tight situations like subways than in loose situa-
tions like public parks. We started by observing people’s actual
mask use. Many prior studies have relied solely on self-report
surveys of mask use (such as Lu et al., 2021; Rieger, 2020).
Self-report can be problematic because people may exaggerate
their mask use, especially when there are social norms or laws
mandating masks. A study in Kenya found that 90% of people
in phone interviews said they wore masks in public, while in
direct observations, only 5% of people wore masks correctly
and another 5% of people had masks with them but did not
wear them correctly (Jakubowski et al., 2021).
In Study 1, we measured people’s actual mask use in pub-
lic across China. We observed 23,551 people in 15 districts
across seven cities. We measured mask use for 5 weeks, start-
ing May 25, 2020. Then we tested whether this pattern would
hold in a large-scale survey (Study 2). The survey asked
15,985 people across China to report their weekly mask use
when going outside. Like our observational study, this survey
covered the “drag on” phase of the pandemic in China (from
April to September 2020). In Study 3, we observed people’s
mask use in March 2023, a time when all mask restrictions for
COVID-19 were lifted in China. We observed 1,287 people in
five Chinese cities and one Portuguese city. This study can
eliminate the confounds of mask mandates and enforcement
of mask policies, reflecting people’s true free choices of mask
use under different situations.
Culture Influences Mask Use
Studies have linked many factors to people’s preventive
behaviors against COVID-19. Perceptions of COVID-19
risk is often a strong predictor (Bruine de Bruin & Bennett,
2020; Mahdavian et al., 2022; Rubaltelli et al., 2020;
Savadori & Lauriola, 2022; Schneider et al., 2021). However,
the factor that comes out as the most important varies across
countries. For example, a study found different results in
Morocco and India (Jadil & Ouzir, 2021). In Morocco, peo-
ple’s perceptions of COVID-19 severity were the best pre-
dictor of protective behaviors. In India, perceptions of the
probability of getting COVID-19 were the most important
predictor of protective behaviors (Jadil & Ouzir, 2021).
However, perceived risk is not the only meaningful pre-
dictor. A study in Germany and United Kingdom found that
personal health risk perceptions, official message quality, use
of official news sources, political orientation, and age all pre-
dicted people’s protective behaviors (Mahdavian et al.,
2022). However, these were all factors at the individual level.
Rarely has research looked at culture-level predictors.
Furthermore, most studies used self-report. In this study, we
use objective observations to improve on the limitations of
self-report. Furthermore, we test culture-level factors, not
just individual factors.
Studies have found evidence that mask use differs along
cultural and demographic factors. For example, around the
world, people in collectivistic cultures were more likely to
report wearing masks (Lu et al., 2021). Similarly, people in
China’s more collectivistic rice-farming areas were more
likely to wear masks, search the internet for masks, or report
wearing masks than people in less collectivistic wheat-farm-
ing areas (English et al., 2022). People in more densely pop-
ulated areas of China were also more likely to wear masks
(English & Li, 2021).
In this study, we test whether tight social norms explain
differences in mask use. “Norm tightness” refers to the
strength of social norms across cultures (Gelfand et al.,
2011). Although all cultures have social norms, research has
found that norm tightness varies across nations (Gelfand
et al., 2011). For example, Pakistan scored as the tightest cul-
ture in a study of 33 nations (Gelfand et al., 2011). Another
tight culture is Singapore, which is famous for caning thieves
and killing people for carrying marijuana. In contrast, Brazil
and Australia have looser norms.
Tight cultures have more rules about what behaviors are
acceptable, and they have stricter punishments for deviant
Wei et al.
behaviors. In contrast, loose cultures have fewer norms lim-
iting people’s behaviors and more tolerance for deviation.
Although cultures have norms about specific behaviors,
there is evidence that cultures have tighter or looser norms in
general, across domains (Gelfand et al., 2011). In this study,
we examine whether people’s mask use differs based on tight
norms in general, rather than specific norms about masks.
Norm Tightness Differs Within China
Tightness also varies within nations. A study found that
norms vary across the 50 U.S. states, with looser norms in
big cities (Harrington & Gelfand, 2014). A study of more
than 11,000 people across China found the opposite pat-
tern—cities have tighter norms (Chua et al., 2019). For
example, large cities like Shanghai have the tightest social
norms (Chua et al., 2019; Talhelm & English, 2020).
This provincial variation in norm tightness provides an
opportunity to test for cultural differences in tightness. A
prior study on tightness and COVID-19 tested for differences
across nations (Gelfand et al., 2021). Although valuable,
comparing different countries introduces potential confounds
between countries, such as language, religion, and national
government. By comparing regions within the same country,
we can rule out many (but not all) of these important
confounds.
Norm Tightness and Mask Use
There is some evidence that social norms are related to mask
use. In a survey, researchers found that people who perceived
strong social norms about masks tended to report wearing
masks more often (Freidin et al., 2021). However, that study
was limited for two reasons. First, it used only self-reported
mask use, which may be inaccurate (Jakubowski et al.,
2021). Second, it measured mask use and social norms with
the same participants, which could inflate the relationship (in
other words, common-method variance).
What is more, we theorized that cultures differ in norm
tightness over the long term and across domains, not just
about masks. Thus, we tested whether more people would
wear masks in regions with tight norms in general (rather than
specifically about masks). If this is true, it allows for much
more predictive power, since we can rely on general knowl-
edge about cultural tightness, rather than having to measure
norms for each new domain at each new point in time. To
measure tightness, we use measurements taken before the
COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, we use measures of norm
tightness at the cultural level, rather than the individual level,
which avoids the problem of common-method variance.
Norms Vary Across Contexts
In this study, besides testing whether people in areas with
tight norms wear masks more often, we also tested whether
3
tight norms matter more in some contexts and less in others.
Research has found that, even in the same society, there are
loose situations versus tight situations (Kitayama, 2002;
Price & Bouffard, 1974). To test this, we measured mask use
in a range of contexts, from places where norms would pre-
sumably be tighter (such as the subway) and places where
norms would presumably be less tight (such as an outdoor
public park).
Among everyday situations, people have rated job inter-
views and funerals as the tightest situations (Gelfand et al.,
2011; Realo et al., 2015). In contrast, people rated public
parks and their own bedrooms as the loosest contexts, with
the least constraint on their behavior. Thus, people’s expecta-
tions about masks may also differ across situations.
We have good reasons to speculate that people’s mask use
in tight situations was shaped more by general norm tight-
ness than in loose situations. Gelfand proposed the idea of
tight–loose “ambidexterity” to describe people’s ability to
shift norms (Gelfand, 2021b). This ambidexterity means that
cultures can toggle between tight norms and loose norms
depending on the situation. For example, tight norms can
help cultures defend against threats in times of disease or
natural disaster. But in times of peace, loose norms can help
cultures achieve the benefits of flexibility, such as creativity
and innovation (Gelfand, 2021b).
During the pandemic, this ambidexterity makes sense in
different contexts. For example, subways are more threaten-
ing contexts, with many people crowded into a tight space. In
contrast, public parks are generally less crowded. Parks are
also open air, which makes it less likely that people will
spread the virus. Contact-tracing data have found that trans-
mission is rare outdoors (Qian et al., 2021).
Public regulations on masks recognized differences
between situations. For example, health authorities in China
advise people to wear masks in crowded indoor situations
but not outdoors (National Health Commission of the
People’s Republic of China, 2020b; Table S1).
Considering these factors, people in tight cultures may
adhere to mask wearing more in tight situations, but not in
loose situations. To test this, in Study 1, we measured mask
use across four situations where mask norms might differ: (a)
public sidewalks, (b) shopping mall entrances, (c) subway
station entrances, and (d) public parks. We tested whether
people would wear masks more in tight situations such as
entrances to subway stations and shopping malls compared
with in loose situations such as streets and parks. We also
tested our assumption that these contexts varied in tightness
using a prior survey in China that asked people to rate the
tightness of these contexts. In Study 3, we measured people’s
mask use in the same four situations as Study 1. Unlike Study
1, in Study 3, we conducted our observations in a period
when there were no mask mandates in China, people can
freely choose to wear a mask or not. Thus, we can test the
prolonged constraints of situations on people’s mask-wear-
ing behaviors during the post-pandemic era.
4 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
In this study, we test what cultural factor is most associ-
ated with people’ mask use during the “drag on” phase of the
coronavirus, while the objective risk is low and mask poli-
cies vary little across regions. By minimizing these factors’
confounding, we can test the “pure” and long-lasting associ-
ations between cultural factors and people’s behaviors of
mask use. With identifying that people in provinces with
tight norms wear masks more, our study provides insight into
why tight cultures contained COVID-19 better (Gelfand
et al., 2021; Schopf, 2022).
Individual Factors
Finally, we tested whether mask use differed based on indi-
vidual factors, such as gender, age, and whether people were
alone. We measured these factors because there is evidence
that mask use differs across demographic factors.
Gender: Several studies have found that women wear
masks more than men (such as Mahalik et al., 2021). An
observational study found that women were 16% more likely
to wear masks than men in the early days of COVID-19 in
Taiwan (Chuang & Liu, 2020). Another observational study
in southwest Iran found that more women (60.2%) wore
masks than men (38.7%; Rahimi et al., 2021). One potential
explanation is that studies have found that women are more
likely to conform to social norms than men (meta-analysis:
Bond & Smith, 1996).
Age: A study in China found that elderly people were less
likely to wear masks in the early days of COVID-19 (English
et al., 2022). This is puzzling because older people are more
likely to die from COVID-19, but one explanation could be
that older people are more resistant to change. For example,
older people are less likely than younger people to change
their shopping habits when they move to new regions
(Bronnenberg et al., 2012).
Groups: In addition, a study in Taiwan found that fewer
people in groups wore masks than people who were alone
(Chuang & Liu, 2020). One explanation we offer is that peo-
ple in groups are more likely to be talking, and people often
report that masks make it harder to communicate.
Methodological Contributions
This study makes several methodological contributions over
prior studies:
1. This study uses objective measures (observations),
cross-referenced with self-report.
2. This study collects a large amount of data (more than
22,000 observations).
3. These data cover a large geographic area, with sev-
eral cities and several sites within cities.
4. The data are longitudinal, covering 5 weeks over mul-
tiple locations, as well as a follow-up 3 years later.
5. We preregistered Study 3 when the COVID-19
restrictions were lifted in China, thus highlighting
robust nature of our predictions.
Theoretical Contributions
The primary theoretical contribution of this study is testing the
idea that tightness depends on the situation, rather than being
just a static trait. Most studies on tightness use it as a cultural
trait that is stable over time (e.g., Gelfand et al., 2011; Uz,
2015). And to be fair, cultural tightness is a trait that lasts over
time. This fact is evident in studies that have used measures of
cultural tightness taken from years past to explain behavior
years later (e.g., Gelfand et al., 2021; Talhelm et al., 2023).
But we argue that the trait concept of tightness is only part
of the picture. Tightness is also a combination of a trait and a
product of situations. To make the best predictions, we must
know both the tightness of a culture and the tightness of the
particular situation. This will give us more predictive power
than knowing the trait alone.
This trait-by-situation theory of tightness can help explain
some potentially puzzling recent findings. For example, a
recent study found that tightness–looseness predicted
COVID-19 cases and deaths across cultures, but it failed to
predict differences in the first 6 months of the pandemic
(Table 4, Talhelm et al., 2023). And if we extend this theo-
retical insight to other cultural traits, we can explain other
differences across time. For example, a recent study found
that relational mobility differences between cultures changed
as the pandemic unfolded (Freeman & Schug, 2021).
Differences were largest at the beginning of the pandemic
and shrank as the pandemic worsened. This extends theory
by melding cultural traits with changes based on situations.
Study 1
Method
Sites. We observed 23,551 people in seven Chinese cities:
Wuhan, Beijing, Shanghai, Lanzhou, Nanchang, Chengdu,
and Zhuhai (Figure 1). We chose these seven cities based on
several factors:
1. Geography: We wanted to cover a diverse geography,
including north, south, east, and west. We also wanted
to include locations besides China’s large coastal cit-
ies, which tend to be overrepresented in research.
2. Distance to the central government: We wanted to
get cities that varied in their distance from the central
government, which could influence the enforcement
of COVID-19 rules.
3. Availability of observers: Because our study stretched
5 weeks over four types of location in each city, we
needed dedicated observers, which limited us from
observing a larger number of cities.
Wei et al.
Figure 1. Mask Observation Sites in Seven Cities.
We selected two districts with different levels of eco-
nomic development in each city. In each district, we observed
people at three locations: street in residential areas, public
park, and shopping mall entrance. We also selected at least
one subway station entrance in each city. Figure 2 shows pic-
tures of data collection sites. The Supplemental Materials
explain the geographic sampling rationales in more detail.
We observed mask use for 5 weeks from May 25, 2020 to
June 28, 2020. Each observer was asked to observe each
location at least once a week. Depending on foot traffic,
observations at each location lasted half an hour to 1 hour.
Table 1 shows the percentage of people wearing masks at
each location and district.
Observation Rules. The principal researchers determined
observation standards and trained the observers using a stan-
dard protocol. On the street, observers coded people who
were walking but not people riding a bike or in a car. We
excluded cars and bikes because it would be difficult to accu-
rately observe people moving by quickly on bikes and in
5
cars. Observers did not code staff (such as security guards
and janitors) because they might be required to wear masks
while on duty.
Observers recorded whether people were wearing a
mask and (a) gender, (b) estimated age range (10 or below,
11–20, 21–40, 41–60, above 60), and (c) whether they
were alone or in a group. We coded people as wearing
masks only when they were wearing a mask properly (cov-
ering the nose and mouth). For people not wearing masks,
we also coded whether they were eating, drinking, or
smoking.
To test whether the observations were reliable, two
observers coded 76 people independently at the same place
and time. Agreement met the standard for “almost perfect or
perfect agreement” (Landis & Koch, 1977): proper mask use
(k = .97, p < .001), gender appearance (k = .94, p < .001),
age (k = .84, p < .001), and whether people were alone or in
a group (k = .97, p < .001).
All data and analysis scripts are openly available on the
Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/mwxe8/?view_only
6 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
=86ffd698b341450dbc0bffde86015e30). The study was
approved by the IRB of the first corresponding author’s
university.
Main Independent Variable
Norm Tightness. Norm tightness data come from a sur-
vey of 11,662 people across 31 provinces in China (Chua
et al., 2019). Unfortunately, that study only reported scores
for provinces, not for any smaller units such as prefectures
or districts. The survey measured norm tightness using Gel-
fand’s six-item scale (Gelfand et al., 2011). For example, par-
ticipants rate “In this province, people almost always comply
with social norms” and “In this province, if people behave in
an inappropriate way, others will strongly disapprove” on a
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The
scale had good reliability (alpha = .71) and significant vari-
ability across provinces (p < .001; Chua et al., 2019).
Control Variables
Demographic Variables. In all analyses, we included peo-
ple’s gender, estimated age range, and whether they were
alone or in a group. We also included a variable representing
nighttime observations. We defined nighttime as after 18:00,
which is approximately the time of sunset during the sum-
mer in China. To be conservative, we also tested observation
time as a continuous variable (by hour) in the Supplemental
Materials (Table S3).
Average Temperature. Because we observed people dur-
ing the summer, we tested whether hot temperatures would
make people less likely to wear masks. We recorded the aver-
age temperature of each observation day.
Air Pollution. One potential confound is that more people
might wear masks when air pollution is bad. To account
for this, we collected the average fine particle air pollution
(PM2.5) on each observation day. We also tested average
historical air pollution because long-term exposure may
affect regions separately from air pollution on any particu-
lar day.
Population Density. COVID-19 may spread faster in areas
that are densely populated. This could cause more people to
wear masks. We tested this by collecting population density
for each district (log transformed).
COVID-19 Cases. Local COVID-19 cases might increase
people’s perception of risk and cause more people to wear
masks. We collected the total local cases of each district by
the day we started the observation. We used log COVID-
19 cases because case data was skewed (skewness = 2.58),
exceeding a recommended cutoff of 2 for skewness (Curran
et al., 1996).
Economic Development. There are a few reasons to expect
that people in more developed areas would wear masks
more. More developed districts may have more resources
for enforcement, education, and easier access to masks.
Developed areas may also be much denser. We used district
GDP per capita in 2019 to represent each district’s economic
development.
Other Cultural Factors. In addition to norm tightness, we
tested other cultural factors, including education, historical
infectious disease, historical air pollution, collectivism, and
relational mobility. To test the influence of historical disease
rates, we collected three indexes: recent history of influenza,
historical pathogen prevalence, and recent history of SARS
cases. For collectivism, we tested relational collectivism and
group collectivism from the large-scale survey from Chua
and colleagues (2019). The Supplemental Materials intro-
duced the rationales, measurements, and sources of all these
variables.
To test the association of mask policies and people’s
actual mask use, we used the coding of researchers at Oxford
(Oxford University, 2023). They coded policies on masks
outside the home. The scale is from 0 (no policy) to 4
(required outside the home at all times regardless of location
or presence of other people). We averaged the policies of
each province over time for the time periods of our
observations.
Analysis. We analyzed the data using hierarchical (multi-
level) binomial models (logistical regression) with individu-
als nested within districts further nested in cities. We used
formula of this type with the GLMER function in the pro-
gram R: Mask Use ~ Norm Tightness (or Other Cultural
Variables) + Control Variables + (1|City/District).
Results
Tight Norms. More people wore masks in provinces with
tight norms at entrances to subways (B = 0.73, SE = 0.18,
z = 4.01, p < .001, d = 0.12) and shopping malls (B = 0.45,
SE = 0.21, z = 2.15, p = .032, d = 0.05), but not walking on
the street (B = 0.36, SE = 0.22, z = 1.63, p = .103, d = 0.04)
or in parks (B = 0.32, SE = 0.33, z = 0.99, p = .321, d =
0.03; Table 2). There was a significant interaction between
norm tightness and tight situations (dummy coded as streets
and parks = 0, subways and malls = 1; B = 0.14, SE = 0.03,
z = 5.02, p < .001, d = 0.07; Table 2).
Tighter and Looser Situations. People wore masks most often
at entrances to subways (70%) and malls (62%). Fewer peo-
ple wore masks on the street (52%) and in parks (35%; chi-
square tests with Bonferroni correction for pairwise
comparisons). The same trend appeared in each city (Figure 3).
These results showed that people’s mask-wearing behaviors
differed widely, even in the same city (and even in the same
district).
Wei et al. 7

Figure 2 Pictures of Observation Sites in Beijing, Zhuhai, Nanchang, and Lanzhou

8 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

Table 1. Sample Size and Mask Use Proportions in Each Location of Each District.

Subway entrance Mall entrance Street Park

City District People % mask People % mask People % mask People % mask
Beijing Chaoyang 550 91.3 587 86.4 529 74.3 538 37.7
Haidian 92 79.3 522 79.1 655 66.6 490 59.6
Wuhan Jianghan / / 553 88.8 524 79.6 560 43.9
Wuchang 544 93.9 475 89.7 534 82.2 600 57.3
Shanghai Hongkou 375 79.5 403 60.0 566 63.1 196 40.8
Yangpu / / 378 67.2 279 60.6 349 56.4
Songjiang 103 82.5 100 62.0 101 37.6 100 18.0
Lanzhou Chengguan 516 62.8 511 35.6 496 42.1 504 26.0
Yuzhong 507 46.0 520 43.5 519 37.0 513 34.4
Nanchang Donghu 349 38.1 405 32.1 342 32.7 302 9.6
Honggutan Xinqu 387 63.6 364 47.5 253 24.1 / /
Chengdu Jinniu / / 405 63.2 405 25.7 407 8.6
Qingyang 404 65.8 405 61.0 404 47.0 406 26.6
Zhuhai Jinwan / / 500 26.6 500 21.2 499 7.0
Xiangzhou 449 74.6 500 71.6 499 40.7 549 37.5

Note. Because Zhuhai and the Yuzhong district of Lanzhou do not have a subway, we observed mask use in a bus station. Honggutan Xinqu in Nanchang is
a new district and does not have a park. (Parks are often built after all high-rise buildings have been completed.) We missed seven people’s data on mask
use and another 21 people’s data on locations, so the total sample size here is 23,523.

This finding is consistent with surveys of people’s percep-
tions about behavioral constraints in different contexts. Chua
and colleagues (2019) surveyed people in China about norm
tightness in four situations that mapped onto our observa-
tions: malls, streets, parks, and public transportation. They
asked about buses, which we think should be similar to sub-
ways. People reported the tightest norms on buses (M =
4.46, SD = 0.49), followed by shopping malls (M = 3.92,
SD = 0.57) and streets (M = 3.75, SD = 0.72). Parks had the
loosest norms (M = 3.44, SD = 0.67).1
Mask Use Across Demographics. Older people were less likely
to wear masks across all situations combined (p < .001).
This is unexpected from the perspective of risk because older
people are at greater risk for COVID-19. However, it fits
with prior observational data in China (English et al., 2022).
More women wore masks (60.5%) than men (46.5%).
This gender difference was significant in all four contexts (ps
< .001; Table 2). This finding fits with observations of mask
use in Taiwan (Chuang & Liu, 2020).
In all four contexts, people who were alone were more
likely to wear masks (59.5%) than people who were with
other people (48.2%, ps < .001; Table 2). At first glance, this
result may seem counterintuitive because the virus spreads
between people. However, people may often be walking with
family or close friends and thinking that they are already
exposed to these people. People may also take off their masks
to make it easier to talk.
Environmental Factors. On hot days, fewer people wore masks
(ps < .05 across all four contexts, Table 2). Temperature
could be confounded with relaxing attitudes over time, but
temperature remained significant after controlling for the
day of observation (Table 2). For every 1 degree Celsius
warmer, people’s mask use decreased 8% at subways, 4% by
shopping malls, 6% on streets, and 6% in parks. These data
suggest that people find masks more uncomfortable during
hot weather.
Where local COVID-19 cases were high, more people
wore masks in tight contexts (subways: B = 0.71, SE = 0.23,
z = 3.02, p = .003, d = 0.09; shopping malls: B = 0.68,
SE = 0.25, z = 2.69, p = .007, d = 0.07; Table 2). Trends
were similar in loose contexts, but not significant. These
results suggest that people responded to local past risk, but
the effect of risk was greater in tight contexts.
Robustness to Alternative Predictors. We tested the robustness
of norm tightness associated with the observed mask use. We
also present analyses of other cultural factors without norm
tightness in the models.
Disease prevalence did not strongly predict mask use.
Historical pathogen prevalence and SARS cases had no signifi-
cant relationship with mask use in any context (Table S6).
Historical influenza predicted more mask use only in parks (B
= 0.12, SE = 0.06, z = 2.13, p = .033, d = 0.06; Table S6).
After controlling for historical influenza, norm tightness
predicted mask use at subways (B = 0.71, SE = 0.18, z =
3.87, p < .001, d = 0.12; Table S7) and shopping malls (B =
0.44, SE = 0.22, z = 1.99, p = .047, d = 0.05; Table S7).
Norm tightness predicted mask use at subways after control-
ling for historical pathogen prevalence (B = 0.50, SE = 0.22,
z = 2.31, p = .021, d = 0.07; Table S7) and SARS cases (B =
Wei et al. 9

Table 2. Norm Tightness Predicts Mask Use in Subways and Malls But Not in Streets or Parks

Subway entrance Mall entrance Street Park All All

Variable Tight Tight Loose Loose / /

Female 0.460*** 0.626*** 0.887*** 0.815*** 0.704*** 0.704***
(0.076) (0.059) (0.058) (0.061) (0.030) (0.030)
Age −0.145** 0.056 0.101*** −0.050 −0.055*** −0.056***
(0.050) (0.033) (0.030) (0.026) (0.015) (0.015)
Alone 0.407*** 0.318*** 0.426*** 0.273*** 0.486*** 0.488***
(0.080) (0.061) (0.059) (0.066) (0.031) (0.031)
Daytime −0.241 −0.036 0.191 0.663*** 0.239*** 0.271***
(0.144) (0.139) (0.129) (0.156) (0.060) (0.060)
Air pollution −0.004 −0.005* 0.004 0.004 −0.004* −0.002
(0.004) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.001) (0.002)
Temperature −0.083*** −0.038* 0.061*** −0.063*** −0.049*** −0.069***
(Celsius) (0.017) (0.016) (0.014) (0.017) (0.007) (0.009)
Population density 0.331 0.636* 0.779*** 0.642 0.630* 0.650*
(0.270) (0.274) (0.212) (0.370) (0.297) (0.278)
COVID-19 cases 0.710** 0.675** 0.515 0.339 0.378 0.424
(0.235) (0.251) (0.270) (0.338) (0.251) (0.234)
GDP per capita 0.004 0.003 −0.008 −0.020 0.008 0.009
(0.027) (0.034) (0.026) (0.055) (0.033) (0.032)
Norm tightness 0.727*** 0.453* 0.357 0.324 0.235 0.279
(0.182) (0.211) (0.219) (0.326) (0.212) (0.196)
Observation day 0.009***
(0.002)
Tight situations 0.526*** 0.525***
(0.102) (0.102)
Norm Tightness × 0.138*** 0.138***
Tight Situations (0.027) (0.027)
Observations 4,162 6,463 6,423 5,905 22,953 22,953
Districts 11 15 15 14 15 15
Cities 7 7 7 7 7 7

Note. Models are multilevel with individuals nested in districts in cities. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients, with standard errors in
parentheses. Daytime is defined as before 18:00. Because college graduates per 100 million and GDP per capita are highly correlated, we did not add
GDP per capita in the models. Tight situations are subways and shopping malls. COVID-19 = coronavirus disease; GDP = gross domestic product.
Results of norm tightness and tight situations are displayed in bold.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

0.71, SE = 0.21, z = 3.33, p < .001, d = 0.10; Table S7),
while the results were weaker for shopping malls (Table S7).
Historical air pollution was positively correlated with mask
use. However, it was only significant for mask use at shopping
malls (B = 0.05, SE = 0.02, z = 2.03, p = .043, d = 0.05;
Table S7). When controlling for historical air pollution, norm
tightness still predicted mask use at subways (B = 0.72, SE =
0.16, z = 4.51, p < .001, d = 0.14) and malls (B = 0.53, SE
= 0.16, z = 3.30, p < .001, d = 0.08; Table S7).
We also tested relational collectivism, group collectivism,
relational mobility, and mask policies (Table S4). We only
found that relational collectivism was correlated with mask
use at subways and shopping malls. However, they were both
in the opposite direction of what theory would predict (Lu
et al., 2021). We discuss these results in detail in Supplemental
Sections 5 and 6. Except relational collectivism, none of the
other variables had significant correlations with mask use.
Discussion
Using objective observations of people’s actual mask use,
Study 1 found differences across situations and regions.
More people wore masks in provinces with tight norms.
Tightness also seemed to be a property of contexts. More
people wore masks in tight contexts (malls and subways)
than loose contexts (parks and streets).
One limitation of Study 1 is that in-person coding is time-
consuming. This limits the number of cities we could mea-
sure, and it limits the statistical power to test for regional
differences. To address this shortcoming, we used large-scale
10 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

Figure 3. Mask Use Varied Widely Across Tight (Orange) and Loose (Blue) Situations.
Note. Bars are ±1 SEM (Standard Error of the Mean). There is no subway in Zhuhai or the Yuzhong district of Lanzhou, so we observed a bus station.

survey data covering 284 prefectures in 30 provinces over a Study 2

longer window of time. While Study 1 measures mask use at
the situational level and focuses on the interactions of norm
tightness in general and situational restrictions, Study 2 mea-
sures mask use at the societal level. With much more broad
sample sites, it provides more solid evidence on the associa-
tion of general norm tightness and mask use.
Method
The international market research company YouGov sur-
veyed 15,985 people from April 2, 2020 to September 25,
2020, which corresponds to what we call the “drag on”
phase. The survey covered 284 prefectures in 30
Wei et al.
provinces (not including Tibet, Hong Kong, Macau, or
Taiwan). Prefectures are similar to U.S. counties, and
they are the smallest geographic unit the survey
identified.
The survey included a question about masks: “How often
have you worn a face mask outside your home (e.g., when on
public transport, going to a supermarket, going to a main
road)?” (1 = Not at all, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 =
Frequently, 5 = Always).
Independent Variable
Norm Tightness. We used the same provincial norm tight-
ness data as in Study 1.
Control Variables
Demographic Variables. The YouGov survey asked par-
ticipants’ gender, age, and socioeconomic status. Participants
reported their social status on a scale from 0 (the worst possible
life) to 10 (the best possible life). A total of 3,002 people did
not report status. Because there were fewer than 30 responses
in Ningxia and Qinghai provinces, we excluded them (norm
tightness still predicted mask use when including all provinces;
Table S11). This left 12,949 responses in the final analysis.
Time. Because mask use could change over time, we also
controlled for the week participants took the survey.
Population Density. We used log prefecture-level popula-
tion density in 2015 from the China City Statistical Yearbook
2016.
COVID-19 Cases. We collected data on the total COVID-
19 cases (including local cases and imported cases from
inbound travelers) from April 2020 to September 2020 of
each prefecture. Because 219 prefectures reported 0 cases,
the data was highly skewed (9.28) and kurtotic (108.79).
This is a problem for statistical tests that assume a normal
distribution. To correct for this, we first computed each pre-
fecture’s COVID-19 cases per capita, then added a small
number (10−7), and log transformed it. This transforma-
tion lowered the skewness (1.44) and kurtosis (0.16). This
reduced skewness below the suggested cutoff of 2 (Curran
et al., 1996).
Economic Development. Chua and colleagues (2019)
found that more developed Chinese provinces have tighter
norms. Thus, norm tightness is collinear with provincial
GDP per capita. To test whether the results were robust to
collinearity, we ran Models 1 to 7 with the original tightness
data and Model 8 with tightness adjusted to remove collin-
earity with GDP. To reduce collinearity, we ran a regression
using GDP to predict norm tightness and saved the unstan-
dardized residual. We used the residual to represent tightness
after controlling for GDP. Provincial GDP per capita is from
2019, from the China Statistical Yearbook 2020.
11
Other Cultural Factors. We tested the same alternative cul-
tural factors as in Study 1.
Analysis. To analyze the data, we used hierarchical linear
models with people nested in prefectures, further nested in
provinces. This takes into account the fact that individual
respondents are not truly independent data points. We used
the LMER function in the program R to run models in this
format: Mask Use ~ Norm Tightness (or Other Cultural Vari-
ables) + Control Variables + (1|Province/Prefecture).
Results
Consistent with Study 1, more people in provinces with tight
norms reported wearing masks (B = 0.09, SE = 0.03, t =
2.77, p = .011, d = 1.13; Table 3, Models 1; Figure 4).
Tightness continued to predict mask use after controlling for
prefecture population density and COVID-19 cases (B =
0.07, SE = 0.03, t = 2.18, p = .039, d = 0.88; Table 3,
Model 2). In Model 8, we found similar results after using
norm tightness values that reduced collinearity with GDP (B
= 0.12, SE = 0.04, t = 3.54, p = .002, d = 1.59).
Demographic Differences. Demographic differences were
similar to the observational findings. Women reported wear-
ing masks more than men (B = 0.16, SE = 0.02, t = 9.92, p
< .001, d = 0.17; Table 3, Model 1). Older people also
reported using masks less (B = −0.006, SE = 0.001, t =
−7.92, p < .001, d = −0.14; Table 3, Model 1). People with
higher socioeconomic status wore masks more (B = 0.023,
SE = 0.004, t = 5.99, p < .001, d = 0.11; Table 3, Model 1).
People’s mask use decreased over time (B = −0.029, SE =
0.002, t = −13.99, p < .001, d = −0.25; Table 3, Model 1).
Overall, the self-report mask data gave a similar picture to
the observational data. However, we could not compare the
exact percentage of mask use because the self-report survey
used imprecise estimates, such as “sometimes.”
Robustness to Alternative Predictors. People reported more
mask use in prefectures with more COVID-19 cases (B =
0.008, SE = 0.003, t = 3.35, p = .001, d = 0.54; Table 3,
Model 2). People also reported wearing masks more in pre-
fectures with more college graduates (B = 0.420, SE =
0.114, t = 3.67, p < .001, d = 0.59; Table 3, Model 3). After
controlling for education, tightness continued to predict
mask use (B = 0.07, SE = 0.03, t = 2.27, p = .032, d =
0.90; Table 3, Model 3). People in provinces with higher his-
torical air pollution reported wearing masks more (B =
0.005, SE = 0.002, t = 2.61, p = .017, d = 1.19; Table 3,
Model 7). Norm tightness continued to predict self-reported
mask use after controlling for historical air pollution (B =
0.07, SE = 0.03, t = 2.45, p = .026, d = 1.20; Table 3,
Model 7).
Mask use was not significantly related to historical influ-
enza cases (p = .334, Table S8, Model 1), historical
12 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

Table 3. People in Provinces With Tighter Norms Reported Wearing Masks More Often.

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

Female 0.157*** 0.156*** 0.155*** 0.156*** 0.156*** 0.156*** 0.155*** 0.156***
(0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016)
Age −0.006*** −0.006*** −0.006*** −0.006*** −0.006*** −0.006*** −0.006*** −0.006***
(0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001)
Socioeconomic 0.023*** 0.023*** 0.022*** 0.023*** 0.023*** 0.022*** 0.022*** 0.023***
status (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004)
Week −0.029*** −0.029*** −0.029*** −0.029*** −0.029*** −0.029*** −0.029*** −0.029***
(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)
Pref. 0.036 0.016 0.045 0.032 0.038 −0.015 0.036
population (0.064) (0.063) (0.064) (0.064) (0.065) (0.062) (0.059)
density
COVID-19 0.008** 0.003 0.008** 0.009*** 0.008** 0.010*** 0.009***
cases
(0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.002) (0.002)
Coll. graduates 0.420***
per 100 million (0.114)
Historical 0.007
influenza (0.006)
Historical −0.009
pathogen (0.010)
prevalence
SARS cases 0.003
(0.012)
Historical air 0.005*
pollution (0.002)
Norm 0.122**
tightness GDP- (0.035)
adjusted
Norm 0.090* 0.070* 0.072* 0.075* 0.068* 0.067 0.067*
tightness
(0.033) (0.032) (0.032) (0.032) (0.032) (0.036) (0.027)
Survey 12,949 12,910 12,910 12,910 12,910 12,910 12,910 12,910
respondents
Prefectures 279 274 274 274 274 274 274 274
Provinces 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28

Note. Models are hierarchical linear models with individuals nested in prefectures in provinces. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients, with
standard errors in parentheses. Week represents the week the participant took the survey (from Week 1 to 16). COVID-19 = coronavirus disease;
GDP = gross domestic product; SARS = severe acute respiratory syndromes. Results of norm tightness are displayed in bold.
*
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

pathogen prevalence (p = .334, Table S8, Model 2), or SARS
cases (p = .297, Table S8, Model 3). Norm tightness
remained predictive after controlling for historical influenza
(B = 0.07, SE = 0.03, t = 2.30, p = .031, d = 0.94; Table 3,
Model 4), historical pathogen prevalence (B = 0.07, SE =
0.03, t = 2.09, p = .048, d = 0.87; Table 3, Model 5), and
SARS cases (marginally significant; B = 0.07, SE = 0.04, t
= 1.84, p = .080, d = 0.80; Table 3, Model 6).
Self-report mask use was not significantly related to rela-
tional collectivism, group collectivism, relational mobility, or
mask policies (Table S5 and S12). These results suggest that the
association between norm tightness and self-report mask use is
specific to tightness and not factors that are often correlated with
tightness, such as collectivism and relational mobility.
Discussion
Overall, the self-report survey data mirrored the observa-
tional data. Among individual factors, women, younger peo-
ple, and people with higher social status reported wearing
masks more. One contribution is that Study 2 had a larger
sample, covering many more provinces and prefectures. This
larger geographic sample replicated the finding that masks
were more common in provinces with tight norms.
Wei et al.
Figure 4 People Report Wearing Masks More Often in
Provinces with Tighter Norms
Note. The correlation remained significant after excluding the outlier
(Guizhou) with the least tightness, r = .42, p = .028.
Norm tightness predicted beyond other logical factors.
For example, population density and local COVID-19 cases
are logical risk factors for COVID-19. Yet, norm tightness
continued to explain variation in mask use after accounting
for these risk factors.
One interesting finding was that collectivism did not pre-
dict higher mask use in Study 1 or Study 2. This is inconsis-
tent with an earlier study (Lu et al., 2021). One possibility is
that the differences in collectivism across cultures in the ear-
lier study are different from the differences in collectivism
here within China. However, we hesitate to draw strong con-
clusions comparing the two studies because the two studies
use different measures of collectivism.
Regions’ history of infectious disease is also a logical
explanation for mask use. For example, SARS hit provinces
like Beijing hard in 2003, whereas other provinces experi-
enced zero cases (Talhelm et al., 2023). Yet, norm tightness
was a stronger predictor than regions’ history of SARS and
the flu.
In Study 3, we built upon the earlier studies by testing
whether differences remained after China ended its COVID-19
restrictions. We preregistered this study and measured people’s
mask use in March, 2023. This came 4 months after China
abruptly lifted its COVID restrictions in December, 2022.
The timing of Study 3 is important because it gives
insight into the question of formal mask policies and
enforcement. Did people wear masks in subways and malls
simply because of formal policies, or is there a larger sense
of situational tightness in these types of places that extend
beyond formal rules?
Study 3 can rule out the effect of having formal policies in
place. Four months after China ended its zero-COVID policy,
people had free choice to wear masks or not. And they had
had 4 months to adjust to life without COVID restrictions.
13
Study 3
Method
We preregistered Study 3 on the OSF at the start of data col-
lection (https://osf.io/mk3xc/?view_only=b99800f736da4c6
9b7d21e43fa90bc8a). We preregistered two hypotheses:
More people will wear masks in tight areas than in loose
areas, and more women will wear masks than men. We also
preregistered the observation cities and locations and the
analysis methods we were going to use.
We observed mask use in five Chinese cities, Beijing,
Hangzhou, Shanghai, Wuhan, Hong Kong, and one
Portuguese city: Lisbon. We chose one city outside China
because we wanted to gain a sense of China’s mask use com-
pared with a culture that did not experience the strict zero-
COVID policy. China and Portugal have similar norm
tightness scores (China: 7.9; Portugal: 7.8) in Gelfand and
colleagues’ (2011) study. Portugal lifted its mask mandate
and recommendations starting on October 1, 2022 (Oxford
University, 2023). This provided us an opportunity to test if
situational differences in mask use would still last half a year
after the lifting of mask mandates.
Like in Study 1, in each city, we observed people at four
locations: subway station entrances, shopping mall entrances,
streets in residential areas, and public parks. The observa-
tional rules were the same as in Study 1, except that each
observer planned to record around 50 observations at each
site.
We observed 1,287 people from March 9, 2023 to March
19, 2023 (Table S14). We used chi-square tests to examine
people’s mask use differences between the four locations. All
p values are Bonferroni corrected for pairwise comparisons.
We also used hierarchical linear models with people nested
in cities to test the preregistered hypotheses.
Results
Putting all data from all six cities together, we found similar
results as Study 1: more people wore masks at entrances to
subways (B = 1.58, SE = 0.24, z = 6.49, p < .001, d = 0.36;
Table 4, Model 1) and entrances to malls (B = 0.91, SE =
0.22, z = 4.07, p < .001, d = 0.23; Table 4, Model 1). Across
all five Chinese cities we observed, more people wore masks
at subways than in parks (Figure 5, Table S15).
Differences were large. For example, in Hangzhou, mask
use was more than double at the subway (80%) compared
with streets (34%) and parks (22%). This suggests that mask
use continued to differ between tight and loose contexts,
even months after China lifted COVID rules.
Mask Use Lower in Portugal. Mask use was far lower in Portu-
gal. In Lisbon, we observed only four out of 215 people
wearing masks. Although more people wore masks in tight
contexts (2.8%) than loose contexts (0.9%) in Portugal, the
14 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

Table 4. Even Months After China Lifted COVID Restrictions, Chinese cities. Supplemental Section 13 reports the results
More People Wore Masks in Tight Context (March 2023). in more detail.
Variable All cities China
Two-Phase Comparisons of Beijing, Shanghai, and Wuhan. In
Female 0.892*** 0.915*** another exploratory analysis (not preregistered), we com-
(0.132) (0.133) pared changes in mask use between 2020 and 2023 in Bei-
Age 0.080 0.056 jing, Shanghai, and Wuhan. We observed these three cities at
(0.076) (0.077) both time points. Beijing’s mask use dropped from 71% in
Time −0.064 −0.040 2020 to 64% in 2023, t(229.04) = 2.15, p = .032, d = 0.28.
(0.064) (0.060)
Shanghai’s mask use dropped from 61% to 38%, t(3,169) =
Air pollution −0.016 −0.010
6.55, p < .001, d = 0.23, and Wuhan’s mask use dropped
(0.008) (0.007)
from 76% to 45%, t(253.52) = 9.35, p < .001, d = 1.17. It
Temperature (Celsius) 0.025 0.017
is interesting to note that mask use dropped the most (31%)
(0.023) (0.022)
Subway 1.581*** 1.544***
in the city with the loosest norms.
(0.244) (0.235)
Shopping mall 0.912*** 0.834*** Discussion
(0.224) (0.222)
Street 0.255 0.233 The data show that people’s mask use was still attuned to
(0.219) (0.217) tight versus loose contexts, even months after China lifted its
Observations 1,287 1,072 zero-COVID policy. This finding rules out the idea that the
Cities 6 5 higher mask use in tight contexts was a product of tight poli-
cies and enforcement alone. By March, 2023, China had
Note. Models are multilevel with individuals nested in cities. Values are lifted its mask policies and enforcement. Yet people contin-
unstandardized regression coefficients, with standard errors in parentheses.
Model 1 includes all six cities that we preregistered. Model 2 limits the ued wearing masks more often in tight contexts. These data
analysis to China (excluding Lisbon). Subway, shopping mall, and street are illustrate the usefulness combining both long-term tightness
coded as 1 = yes, 0 = no. Parks are the baseline for comparisons. Since and the tightness of situations.
the observer in Hong Kong did not record whether people were alone
or in a group on the street and at the entrance to subway or entrance to
shopping mall, we did not include this variable in the main models. Results General Discussion
were similar in analyses controlling for this variable (Supplemental Section
12, Table S16). COVID-19 = coronavirus disease. Results of subway and The results of these studies illuminate consistent high
shopping mall are displayed in bold.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
mask use, even during a time of low COVID cases. Most
subways and malls were still above 50% mask use, even
after 4 weeks of COVID case counts that were very low by
differences were tiny and nowhere near significant. This global standards. In March 2023, the subways in all five
result indicates a huge difference in mask use between China Chinese cities were still above 50% mask use despite no
and abroad. requirements or enforcement. Overall, these data fit with
earlier findings that China is a culture with tight norms
More Women Wear Masks Than Men. Consistent with the (Gelfand et al., 2011).
findings of Studies 1 and 2, more women wore masks than Yet the data showed this is not uniform across China. For
men (B = 0.89, SE = 0.13, z = 6.73, p < .001, d = 0.38; example, mask use averaged 71% in Beijing versus 41% in
Table 4, Model 1). This is also consistent with the finding Lanzhou from late May 2020 to June 2020. These results fit
that women’s risk perception is higher than men (Brown with earlier research finding regional differences in norms
et al., 2021). across China (Chua et al., 2019). This adds to the idea that
China is not a single culture. There are meaningful cultural dif-
Tight Norms and Tight Situations. Although we did not pre- ferences within China (Chua et al., 2019; Talhelm et al., 2014).
register this analysis, we did an exploratory test of the The results also fit with the idea that norm tightness is a
interaction between regional norm tightness and situa- stable cultural trait. The tightness data were measured years
tional tightness. We found that more people wore masks in before COVID-19, yet it still predicted mask use in 2023. This
tighter provinces (B = 0.62, SE = 0.21, z = 2.98, p = suggests that cultural differences in tightness are enduring,
.003, d = 0.20, across all situations) and tighter situations even in the face of a disease that did not exist before 2019.
(B = 2.54, SE = 1.06, z = 2.39, p = .017, d = 0.16), but
the interaction was not significant (B = −0.31, SE = 0.25,
z = −1.23, p = .219, d = −0.08; Table S17). However,
Tight Regions and Tight Contexts
these results should be treated with caution because we The main theoretical contribution of this study is that it
only have comparable regional tightness data for four demonstrates how norm tightness is both a stable cultural
Wei et al.
Figure 5 Mask Use Varied Widely Across Tight (Orange) and Loose (Blue) Situations (March, 2023)
trait and a product of situations. Although tightness–
looseness theory recognized differences between situa-
tions since the early days (Gelfand et al., 2011), most
studies (including our own) use tightness as a static dif-
ference between groups. This is true of studies that use
tightness to predict cultural differences in crime and drug
use (Gelfand, 2018), creativity (Chua et al., 2019),
COVID-19 spread (English et al., 2022; Talhelm et al.,
2023), and conformity in how people respond to surveys
(Uz, 2015).
In contrast, this study documents how the same behavior
(wearing a mask in public) depends on cultural tightness
only in the right situation. Tightness did not significantly
15
predict mask use in parks, for example. But it did predict
mask use in the subway.
This helps flesh out Gelfand’s idea of tight–loose ambi-
dexterity—the ability to switch between tight and loose
(Gelfand, 2021a, 2021b). The situation is one determinant of
people switching between tight and loose. Our data suggest
that people in China were switching between tight norms on
the subway to loose norms on the sidewalk.
The 2023 data found that these tight–loose differences per-
sisted even in the absence of formal rules. In December, 2022,
China lifted its COVID restrictions, and people had free choice
to wear masks or not. Despite this, months later, people were
still masking more in tight situations than loose situations.
16
Limitations and Future Directions
One limitation of this study is that data cannot prove causal-
ity because we did not manipulate norm tightness. Future
studies can use experiments or interventions to pin down
causal effects of norm tightness on mask use (Dimant et al.,
2022; Gelfand et al., 2022).
Another limitation is that we measured compliance with
only one social norm—wearing masks. COVID-19 preven-
tion included other norms, such as staying home while sick,
testing before seeing people, and washing hands. One distin-
guishing feature about masks is that they are easy to monitor.
It is easy to see whether people are wearing masks, but it is
harder to see whether a parent is failing to say that their kids
were exposed to COVID-19 before taking them to school.
There is evidence that people take advantage of the fact
that some COVID behaviors are not easy to verify. In a sur-
vey, one fourth of U.S. parents reported breaking the rules
for their children, such as by not telling other people that
their child was exposed to COVID-19 (Levy et al., 2023).
Future studies can test whether norm tightness applies as
well to these hard-to-monitor behaviors.
The third limitation is that there may be other potential
mechanisms for people to keep wearing masks in subways
and shopping malls after the lift of mask mandates. For
example, the “inertia” of habitual behaviors may be driving
people to wear masks more in subways and malls. Or, even
though the mask mandates were lifted, they may still have a
lasting effect on people’ mask use. Future studies can test
these potential reasons.
The fourth limitation is generalizability. We do not know
whether this finding is generalizable beyond China. To test
this, future studies can collect data on mask use or other
health-protective behaviors in other countries.
Strategic Loosening Might Combat Pandemic
Fatigue
Although tight norms meant more masks in these data, norm
tightness is not simply good or bad. Instead, there are trade-
offs between order and openness. Tight cultures tend to have
more order—better public health outcomes, less crime, and
less drug use (Gelfand et al., 2020). In contrast, loose cul-
tures tend to be better at innovating and protecting individual
rights.
Gelfand (2021a) proposed that cultures would benefit
from “tight-loose ambidexterity” by tightening norms during
pandemics. Our data suggest another layer—that cultures
can also have ambidexterity across different contexts at the
same time.
This ambidexterity might help societies fight pandemic
fatigue. Wearing masks can be a burden. But by allowing
people the freedom to go without masks in low-risk contexts
like parks, people may have more patience with wearing
masks in high-risk contexts like subway cars.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
Practical Implications
The results of this study might be useful for planning public
health responses. The data may give clues about where it
would be wise to spend public health and enforcement dol-
lars. For example, if we know what contexts have tight
social norms to begin with, we can reasonably predict that
compliance will be higher there. Governments and schools
might be better off if they put effort into raising awareness
campaigns, monitoring, and enforcement in weaker
contexts.
The results of Study 3 (done after the restrictions were
lifted) also suggest practical implications for public health.
The results suggest that cultural differences persist even after
governments lift formal rules. This can be useful in helping
governments forecast disease outcomes after changing pol-
icy. For example, when China lifted its COVID restrictions,
it experienced a massive wave of illness and death.
Policymakers could have used tightness data as a part of
forecasts for where to stockpile antiviral treatments in antici-
pation of the coming wave of infections.
Finally, cultural factors like norm tightness could partly
explain why Johns Hopkins’s pandemic preparedness rank-
ings were so far from actual COVID-19 outcomes just a year
later (Nuclear Threat Initiative, 2019). For example, Johns
Hopkins ranked the United States and the Netherlands at the
top of the world in pandemic preparedness. But these two
countries had some of the highest COVID-19 cases per cap-
ita (Talhelm et al., 2023).
It is probably not a coincidence that both the United States
and the Netherlands have loose norms (Gelfand et al., 2011).
While Johns Hopkins took into account many hard assets
such as hospital beds and research facilities, it did not account
for “soft” assets such as social norms. This study suggests
one concrete metric that researchers can start using to take
culture into account before the next pandemic.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
project was partially supported with funding from the Susan and
Richard Kiphart Center for Global Health and Social Development
at the University of Chicago’s Crown Family School of Social
Work, Policy, and Practice.
ORCID iDs
Liuqing Wei https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6488-7454
Alexander Scott English https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0142-
146X
Thomas Talhelm https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0954-5758
Wei et al.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material is available online with this article.
Note
1. Chua and colleagues (2019) did not report these results in their
paper, so we computed the scores in four situations using their
raw data. Repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correc-
tion showed that the pairwise comparisons of behavioral con-
straints between four situations were all statistically significant.
References
Badillo-Goicoechea, E., Chang, T. H., Kim, E., LaRocca, S.,
Morris, K., Deng, X., Chiu, S., Bradford, A., Garcia, A., Kern,
C., Cobb, C., Kreuter, F., & Stuart, E. A. (2021). Global trends
and predictors of face mask usage during the COVID-19 pan-
demic. BMC Public Health, 21(1), Article 2099. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12889-021-12175-9
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-
analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment
task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111–137. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111
Bronnenberg, B. J., Dubé, J. P. H., & Gentzkow, M. (2012). The
evolution of brand preferences: Evidence from consumer
migration. The American Economic Review, 102(6), 2472–
2508. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.6.2472
Brown, G. D., Largey, A., & McMullan, C. (2021). The impact of
gender on risk perception: Implications for EU member states’
national risk assessment processes. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 63, 102452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2021.102452
Bruine de Bruin, W., & Bennett, D. (2020). Relationships between ini-
tial COVID-19 risk perceptions and protective health behaviors:
A national survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
59(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2020.05.001
Chinese Government. (2023, January 14). https://www.gov.cn/xin-
wen/gwylflkjz231/index.htm
Chua, R. Y. J., Huang, K. G., & Jin, M. (2019). Mapping cultural
tightness and its links to innovation, urbanization, and happi-
ness across 31 provinces in China. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(14),
6720–6725. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1815723116
Chuang, Y., & Liu, J. C. E. (2020). Who wears a mask? Gender
differences in risk behaviors in the COVID-19 early days in
Taiwan. Economics Bulletin, 40(4), 2619–2627.
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of
test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confir-
matory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16
Dimant, E., Clemente, E. G., Pieper, D., Dreber, A., Gelfand,
M., Hallsworth, M., Holzwarth, A., & Tantia, P. (2022).
Politicizing mask-wearing: Predicting the success of behav-
ioral interventions among republicans and democrats in the
U.S. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 7575. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-022-10524-1
English, A. S., & Li, X. (2021). Mask use depends on the individual,
situation, and location—Even without COVID-19 transmission:
An observational study in Shanghai. Frontiers in Psychology,
12, Article 754102. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.754102
17
English, A. S., Talhelm, T., Tong, R., Li, X., Su, Y., & Lu, J.
(2022). Historical rice farming explains faster mask use during
early days of China’s COVID-19 outbreak. Current Research
in Ecological and Social Psychology, 3, 100034. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cresp.2022.100034
Freeman, J. D., & Schug, J. (2021). Freedom to stay-at-home?
Countries higher in relational mobility showed decreased
geographic mobility at the onset of the COVID-19 pan-
demic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 3999. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648042
Freidin, E., Acera Martini, L., Senci, C. M., Duarte, C., & Carballo,
F. (2021). Field observations and survey evidence to assess
predictors of mask wearing across different outdoor activities
in an Argentine city during the COVID-19 pandemic. Applied
Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 14(1), 81–100. https://
doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12292
Gelfand, M. J. (2018). Rule makers, rule breakers: How tight and
loose cultures wire our world. Scribner.
Gelfand, M. J. (2021a). Cultural evolutionary mismatches in response
to collective threat. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
30(5), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211025032
Gelfand, M. J. (2021b, August 23). A failure of fear: Why certain
nations flunked the COVID-19 threat test. Behavioral Scientist.
https://behavioralscientist.org/a-failure-of-fear-why-certain-
nations-flunked-the-covid-19-threat-test-tight-loose-cultures/
Gelfand, M. J., Caluori, N., Jackson, J. C., & Taylor, M. K. (2020).
The cultural evolutionary trade-off of ritualistic synchrony.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 375(1805), 20190432. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rstb.2019.0432
Gelfand, M. J., Jackson, J. C., Pan, X., Nau, D., Pieper, D., Denison,
E., Dagher, M., Van Lange, P. A. M., Chiu, C. Y., & Wang, M.
(2021). The relationship between cultural tightness–looseness
and COVID-19 cases and deaths: A global analysis. The Lancet
Planetary Health, 5(3), e135–e144. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S2542-5196(20)30301-6
Gelfand, M. J., Li, R., Stamkou, E., Pieper, D., Denison, E.,
Fernandez, J., Choi, V., Cha, t, man, J., Jackson, J., & Dimant,
E. (2022). Persuading republicans and democrats to comply
with mask wearing: An intervention tournament. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 101, 104299. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104299
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim,
B. C., Duan, L., Almaliach, A., Ang, S., Arnadottir, J., Aycan,
Z., Boehnke, K., Boski, P., Cabecinhas, R., Chan, D., Chhokar,
J., D’Amato, A., Ferrer, M., Fischlmayr, I. C., & Yamaguchi,
S. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A
33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1197754
Haischer, M. H., Beilfuss, R., Hart, M. R., Opielinski, L., Wrucke,
D., Zirgaitis, G., Uhrich, T. D., & Hunter, S. K. (2020). Who
is wearing a mask? Gender-, age-, and location-related dif-
ferences during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLOS ONE,
15(10), Article e0240785. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0240785
Harrington, J. R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2014). Tightness-looseness
across the 50 United States. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(22),
7990–7995. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317937111
18
Jadil, Y., & Ouzir, M. (2021). Exploring the predictors of health-
protective behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-
country comparison. Environmental Research, 199, 111376.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111376
Jakubowski, A., Egger, D., Nekesa, C., Lowe, L., Walker, M., &
Miguel, E. (2021). Self-reported mask wearing greatly exceeds
directly observed use: Urgent need for policy intervention in
Kenya. medRxiv.
Kitayama, S. (2002). Culture and basic psychological processes—
Toward a system view of culture: Comment on Oyserman et al.
(2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 89–96. https://doi.
org/10.1037//0033-2909.128.1.89
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer
agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Levy, A. G., Thorpe, A., Scherer, L. D., Scherer, A. M., Butler,
J. M., Shoemaker, H., & Fagerlin, A. (2023). Parental non-
adherence to health policy recommendations for prevention
of COVID-19 transmission among children. JAMA Network
Open, 6(3), e231587. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanet-
workopen.2023.1587
Lopes, M. (2022, April 1). Even after Singapore lifts restrictions,
residents stick to their masks. The Washington Post. https://
www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/01/singapore-ends-
outdoor-mask-mandate-covid/
Lu, J. G., Jin, P., & English, A. S. (2021). Collectivism predicts
mask use during COVID-19. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(23),
e2021793118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021793118/-/
DCSupplemental
Mahalik, J. R., Di Bianca, M., & Harris, M. P. (2021). Men’s atti-
tudes toward mask-wearing during COVID-19: Understanding
the complexities of mask-ulinity. Journal of Health Psychology,
27(5), 1187–1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105321990793
Mahdavian, F., Warren, G. W., Evensen, D., & Bouder, F. E.
(2022). The relationship between barriers and drivers of
COVID-19 protective behaviors in Germany and the UK.
International Journal of Public Health, 67, 1604970. https://
doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2022.1604970
National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China.
(2020a). http://www.nhc.gov.cn/jkj/s3577/202003/0a472cc09
e744144883db6a74fe6e760.shtml
National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China.
(2020b). http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/202005/59f0545ad2
7249c78d25ecee508369d4.shtml
Nuclear Threat Initiative. (2019). 2019 Global Health Security Index.
https://www.ghsindex.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-
Global-Health-Security-Index.pdf
Oxford University. (2023). COVID-19 Government Response
Tracker. https://github.com/OxCGRT/covid-policy-tracker
Price, R. H., & Bouffard, D. L. (1974). Behavioral appropriateness
and situational constraint as dimensions of social behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 579–586.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037037
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
Qian, H., Miao, T., Liu, L., Zheng, X., Luo, D., & Li, Y. (2021).
Indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Indoor Air, 31(3), 639–
645. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12766
Rahimi, Z., Shirali, G. A., Araban, M., Mohammadi, M. J., &
Cheraghian, B. (2021). Mask use among pedestrians during
the COVID-19 pandemic in Southwest Iran: An observational
study on 10,440 people. BMC Public Health, 21, Article 133.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-10152-2
Realo, A., Linnamägi, K., & Gelfand, M. J. (2015). The cultural
dimension of tightness-looseness: An analysis of situational
constraint in Estonia and Greece. International Journal
of Psychology, 50(3), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ijop.12097
Rieger, M. (2020). To wear or not to wear? Factors influencing
wearing face masks in Germany during the COVID-19 pan-
demic. Social Health and Behavior, 3(2), 50–54. https://doi.
org/10.4103/shb.shb_23_20
Rubaltelli, E., Tedaldi, E., Orabona, N., & Scrimin, S. (2020).
Environmental and psychological variables influencing reac-
tions to the COVID-19 outbreak. British Journal of Health
Psychology, 25(4), 1020–1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjhp.12473
Savadori, L., & Lauriola, M. (2022). Risk perceptions and COVID-
19 protective behaviors: A two-wave longitudinal study of epi-
demic and post-epidemic periods. Social Science & Medicine,
301, 114949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114949
Schneider, C. R., Dryhurst, S., Kerr, J., Freeman, A. L. J., Recchia,
G., Spiegelhalter, D., & van der Linden, S. (2021). COVID-19
risk perception: A longitudinal analysis of its predictors and
associations with health protective behaviours in the United
Kingdom. Journal of Risk Research, 24, 294–313. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13669877.2021.1890637
Schopf, J. C. (2022). Why tightness alone is not enough: The vary-
ing anti-pathogenic effects of rational values and cultural
tightness at different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Journal of Health Psychology, 27(13), 2936–2950. https://doi.
org/10.1177/13591053211073861
Talhelm, T., & English, A. S. (2020). Historically rice-farming
societies have tighter social norms in China and worldwide.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 117(33), 19816–19824. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1909909117/-/DCSupplemental
Talhelm, T., Lee, C. S., English, A. S., & Wang, S. (2023). How
rice fights pandemics: Nature–crop–human interactions shaped
COVID-19 outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
49, 1567–1586. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221107209
Talhelm, T., Zhang, X., Oishi, S., Shimin, C., Duan, D., Lan, X.,
& Kitayama, S. (2014). Large-scale psychological differ-
ences within China explained by rice versus wheat agriculture.
Science, 344(6184), 603–608. https://doi.org/10.1126/sci-
ence.1246850
Uz, I. (2015). The index of cultural tightness and looseness among
68 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(3),
319–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114563611