1. Cultural tightness, CTL, is the homogeneity in norms, values, and behavior (Carpenter, 2000; Triandis, 1989; Uz, 2015). A tight culture has strict norms and a low level of tolerance for deviance (Gelfand et al., 2011). Aim of the Study To cross-validate CTL_HG and CTL_DS and compare the two measures Abstract. The goal of the present study was to cross-validate two measures of cultural tightness and looseness, CTL: one used in within country computation, and the other used in across-countries computation. The former was based mainly on aggregation of the state laws on controversial issues and the religiosity in US. The latter was based on assessment of homogeneity in moral values among representative samples across countries. Two measures of CTL correlated highly with each other, r =.92, and with theoretical variables of interest. The results also suggested that the two measures were related with religiosity. Two different measures of CTL: 1) CTL measure of Harrington and Gelfand (CTL_HG; 2014) examined CTL in 50 states in USA by using state-level data on nine variables tapping state relegiosity, percentage of with no religious affiliation, legality of corporal punishment in schools, percentage of students hit in schools, rate of executions, severity of marijuana laws, ratio of dry to total counties, legality of same-sex civil unions 2) Domain specific CTL measure (CTL_DS) of Uz (2015) relied on representative samples of 68 countries from European and World Value Survey. CTL_DS was based on the mean of the SDs of responses to five questions about justifiability of prostitution, abortion, divorce, euthanasia, and suicide across 68 societies. Table 1. The correlations of CTL_DS, CTL_HG, and other theoretical variables of interest. Note. The higher the scores on CTL measures were, the higher the cultural looseness was. *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001, a <.10. Results and Discussion Results can be seen in Table 1. CTL_DS and CTL_HG correlated well with each other and with the postulated variables in the framework. Further, when both CTL_DS and CTL_HG were entered into a regression equation to predict the related constructs, neither of the two CTL measures was significant anymore, attesting to the substitutability of the two CTL measures. The relationship between Southerness and CTL was not studied quantitatively before. The results suggest that the Southerness is related to cultural tightness. Although computed via entirely different methods, these two measures were highly correlated with each other and with theoretical variables of interest which enhances the credibility of both measures. The findings suggest that the measure by Harrington and Gelfand (2014) used for within country computation of CTL and CTL_DS of Uz (2015) used for across countries computation of CTL are valid and interchangeable with each other, and can be used with confidence to test further hypotheses on CTL. It seems that common thread running through both CTL measures is moral values where law and religion have something to say about. Religion is apparently an important predictor of CTL_HG since it loaded.97 of CTL_HG measure (Harrington & Gelfand, 2014), and Uz (2015) demonstrated that cross-cultural variation in CTL was strongly associated with religious denomination, canonical r =.79. As cultural differences, including CTL, have been argued to be related to efforts of adaptation to environmental demands (e.g., Boyd & Richerson, 2005), certain religions and certain level of religiosity might also be adaptive in particular environments. Cultural Tightness and Looseness Measures Cross-Validated Irem Uz 1 & Sinan Alper 2 1 TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Turkey, iuz@etu.edu.tr, 2 Middle East Technical University, Turkey, sinan.alper@metu.edu.tr ___________________________________________________________ References Harrington, J. R. & Gelfand, M. J. (2014). Tightness–looseness across the 50 united states. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 7990-7995. Uz, I. (2015). The index of cultural tightness and looseness among 68 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 319-335. 1.Threat to survival Historical Current 2. Sociopolitical context Traditional society Institutional repression CULTURAL TIGHTNESS 3. Psychological symptoms i. Subjective states (-) - Feelings of freedom of choice and control - Well-being ii. Attitudes towards dissimilar others (-) - Willingness to live near dissimilar others - Tolerance for moral deviations iii. Behavioral inhibition A framework for cultural tightness from Uz (2015). Methods Uz’s (2015) framework was utilized to cross-validate the two CTL measures. The variables used to generate the latent constructs were taken from Harrington and Gelfand’s (2014) research as long as conceptually similar variables existed in their study. Data from World Value Survey (WVS, 2014), waves between 1999-2011, was used for 10 different divisions in United States: New England, Mid-Atlantic, East North Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, East South Central, West South Central, Mountain divisions, Northwest, and California. CTL_DS. The SD of the responses to the following questions was examined: prostitution, abortion, divorce and euthanasia (Cronbach’s α =.81). CTL_HG. The scores given at the state level were weighted by the population of each state in 2010 (Census, 2015a) and aggregated at the divisional level. Variables from the framework of Uz (2015). Other related constructs. Collectivism, social disorganization, conservatism, Southerness.