The preindustrial family structure instilled family members with values that passed through generations and impact today's political attitudes and policies. Three studies show that ancestral kinship structure predicts right-wing cultural attitudes and, among those less engaged in politics, left-wing economic attitudes (though controlling for the country of residence removes this prediction). Stronger country-level ancestral kinship strength also increases anti-LGBT policies and welfare spending. This work indicates that political beliefs are rooted in the value systems and familial institutions created by our forebears.

The preindustrial family structure instilled family members with values that passed through generations and impact today's political attitudes and policies. Three studies show that ancestral kinship structure predicts right-wing cultural attitudes and, among those less engaged in politics, left-wing economic attitudes (though controlling for the country of residence removes this prediction). Stronger country-level ancestral kinship strength also increases anti-LGBT policies and welfare spending. This work indicates that political beliefs are rooted in the value systems and familial institutions created by our forebears.

The preindustrial family structure instilled family members with values that passed through generations and impact today's political attitudes and policies. Three studies show that ancestral kinship structure predicts right-wing cultural attitudes and, among those less engaged in politics, left-wing economic attitudes (though controlling for the country of residence removes this prediction). Stronger country-level ancestral kinship strength also increases anti-LGBT policies and welfare spending. This work indicates that political beliefs are rooted in the value systems and familial institutions created by our forebears.

A study assessed whether individuals express discriminatory attitudes in family and political settings across groups defined by COVID-19 vaccination status across 21 countries. The study found that vaccinated people express discriminatory attitudes towards unvaccinated individuals at a level as high as discriminatory attitudes commonly aimed at immigrant and minority populations. However, there was an absence of evidence that unvaccinated individuals display discriminatory attitudes towards vaccinated people. Discriminatory attitudes towards the unvaccinated were found in all countries except for Hungary and Romania and were more strongly expressed in cultures with stronger cooperative norms. The study suggests that contributors to the public good of epidemic control, such as vaccinated individuals, react negatively towards perceived "free-riders," such as unvaccinated individuals. The study also suggests that discriminatory attitudes, including support for the removal of fundamental rights, emerged despite appeals to moral obligations to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

The purpose of the present study is to provide insight on the debate concerning how best to organize societies: with more freedom (looseness) or with more constraint (tightness). In a comparison of 32 nations, Harrington, Boski, and Gelfand examine the relationship between tightness/looseness and three dimensions of societal well-being: psychosocial, health, and political/economic outcomes. Findings indicate that excessive constraint and/or freedom contribute to poorer psychosocial, health, and economic/political outcomes, as well as overall national-level well-being. These results suggest that a balance of freedom and constraint is associated with optimal societal well-being.

The purpose of the present study is to provide insight on the debate concerning how best to organize societies: with more freedom (looseness) or with more constraint (tightness). In a comparison of 32 nations, Harrington, Boski, and Gelfand examine the relationship between tightness/looseness and three dimensions of societal well-being: psychosocial, health, and political/economic outcomes. Findings indicate that excessive constraint and/or freedom contribute to poorer psychosocial, health, and economic/political outcomes, as well as overall national-level well-being. These results suggest that a balance of freedom and constraint is associated with optimal societal well-being.

Researchers used various hypotheses to determine if cross-country differences in trust and cooperation would predict prosocial COVID-19 responses and policies. Using individual surveys from 34,526 participants from 41 countries, there were no significant associations between trust and cooperation and prosocial behavior, motivation, regulation, or stringency of policies. While the researchers did find significant variation among cross-country individuals, these results were unable to predict country-level prosocial responses.

The purpose of the present study is to provide insight on the debate concerning how best to organize societies: with more freedom (looseness) or with more constraint (tightness). In a comparison of 32 nations, Harrington, Boski, and Gelfand examine the relationship between tightness/looseness and three dimensions of societal well-being: psychosocial, health, and political/economic outcomes. Findings indicate that excessive constraint and/or freedom contribute to poorer psychosocial, health, and economic/political outcomes, as well as overall national-level well-being. These results suggest that a balance of freedom and constraint is associated with optimal societal well-being.

The purpose of the present study is to provide insight on the debate concerning how best to organize societies: with more freedom (looseness) or with more constraint (tightness). In a comparison of 32 nations, Harrington, Boski, and Gelfand examine the relationship between tightness/looseness and three dimensions of societal well-being: psychosocial, health, and political/economic outcomes. Findings indicate that excessive constraint and/or freedom contribute to poorer psychosocial, health, and economic/political outcomes, as well as overall national-level well-being. These results suggest that a balance of freedom and constraint is associated with optimal societal well-being.

The purpose of the present study is to provide insight on the debate concerning how best to organize societies: with more freedom (looseness) or with more constraint (tightness). In a comparison of 32 nations, Harrington, Boski, and Gelfand examine the relationship between tightness/looseness and three dimensions of societal well-being: psychosocial, health, and political/economic outcomes. Findings indicate that excessive constraint and/or freedom contribute to poorer psychosocial, health, and economic/political outcomes, as well as overall national-level well-being. These results suggest that a balance of freedom and constraint is associated with optimal societal well-being.