CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 144Social and Intergroup PsychologyCultural Differences and ValuesEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice

Open access
Jackson, Joshua Conrad, van Egmond, Marieke, Choi, Virginia K., Ember, Carol R., Halberstadt, Jamin, Balanovic, Jovana, Basker, Inger N., Boehnke, Klaus +11 more·2019·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0221953PMC PMC6730889
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Prejudiced attitudes and political nationalism vary widely around the world, but there has been little research on what predicts this variation. Here we examine the ecological and cultural factors underlying the worldwide distribution of prejudice. We suggest that cultures grow more prejudiced when they tighten cultural norms in response to destabilizing ecological threats. A set of seven archival analyses, surveys, and experiments (∑N = 3,986,402) find that nations, American states, and pre-industrial societies with tighter cultural norms show the most prejudice based on skin color, religion, nationality, and sexuality, and that tightness predicts why prejudice is often highest in areas of the world with histories of ecological threat. People's support for cultural tightness also mediates the link between perceived ecological threat and intentions to vote for nationalist politicians. Results replicate when controlling for economic development, inequality, conservatism, residential mobility, and shared cultural heritage. These findings offer a cultural evolutionary perspective on prejudice, with implications for immigration, intercultural conflict, and radicalization.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Seven archival, survey, and experimental studies (∑N = 3,986,402) find that cultures with tighter norms show more prejudice across nations, US states, and pre-industrial societies, and that ecological threat predicts prejudice through cultural tightness. The authors argue this offers a cultural evolutionary account of prejudice and nationalist political support.

Key findings

  • Across 25 current-day nations, nation-level cultural tightness predicted prejudice, b = .05, SE = .02, t = 3.25, p = .004, R²level 2 = .30, controlling for GDP per capita, GINI, and WVS wave; tightness also predicted each prejudice indicator, including immigrants, OR = 1.18, p < .001, and unmarried cohabitants, OR = 1.38, p < .001.
  • Across the 50 US states, tightness predicted explicit prejudice, b = .02, SE = .003, t = 7.19, p < .001, R²level 2 = .64, controlling for income, conservatism, and residential mobility; conservatism’s effect was nullified when tightness was included. Tightness also predicted implicit prejudice, b = .002, SE = .001, t = 3.82, p < .001, R² = .11.
  • Across 47 pre-industrial societies, tightness predicted prejudice, b = .85, SE = .28, t = 2.98, p = .005, R²level 1 = .09, controlling for shared language family and residential mobility.
  • Threat-to-tightness-to-prejudice mediation replicated across studies; in Study 5, experimentally salient ecological threat increased support for tightness, F(2,1046) = 5.18, p = .006, and support for tightness predicted prejudice, b = .06, SE = .02, t = 2.37, p = .01. In Studies 6–7, threat predicted intention to vote for Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen via tightness and prejudice, with significant serial indirect effects and no significant direct effects.

Methods

  • Seven studies combined archival analyses, surveys, and an experiment: Study 1 used 117,157 individuals from 25 countries in the World Values Survey; Study 2 used 11,577 individuals from the 50 US states in the General Social Survey; Study 3 used 3,855,737 US residents from Project Implicit (2002–2016); Study 4 used 47 Standard Cross-Cultural Sample societies; Study 5 was an experiment with 1,049 participants from Singapore, Germany, the USA, and Brazil; Studies 6–7 surveyed 562 Americans during the 2016 primary and 320 French respondents before the 2017 election.
  • Measures included prejudice indices (e.g., unwillingness to live near stigmatized groups, opposition to relatives marrying minority groups, implicit association tests, cross-cultural hostility/violence codes, and survey prejudice items), cultural tightness (nation and state scores, ethnographic coding across six domains, and individual support-for-tightness scales), and ecological threat indices (e.g., population density, food deprivation, disease, disaster, conflict, parasite stress, resource scarcity, famine, warfare, and perceived threats).
  • Analyses used multilevel models with random intercepts across nations, states, language families, or participants’ states; controls included economic development, inequality, conservatism, residential mobility, and shared cultural heritage; mediation was tested with Monte Carlo simulations, plus ANOVA, regression, and serial mediation path models.

Limitations

  • The paper states that its correlational studies do not show that tightness causes prejudice, that tightness is not the only cultural factor linked with prejudice, and that the authors did not see evidence of mutual influence/feedback between tightness and prejudice; they call for longitudinal, time-series, and phylogenetic work.
  • Evident from the text: mediation analyses are largely cross-sectional or correlational, and Study 5 notes that measuring a mediator cannot establish a causal relationship on an outcome variable.
  • Evident from the text: Study 3 relies on Project Implicit users who freely take implicit association tests, so that sample is not a probability sample; Study 4 uses ethnographic codes assigned by trained research assistants.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0221953

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 37 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Nations, American states, and pre-industrial societies with tighter cultural norms show the most prejudice based on skin color, religion, nationality, and sexuality.

    “A set of seven archival analyses, surveys, and experiments (∑N = 3,986,402) find that nations, American states, and pre-industrial societies with tighter cultural norms show the most prejudice based on skin color, religion, nationality, and sexuality”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    People's support for cultural tightness mediates the link between perceived ecological threat and intentions to vote for nationalist politicians.

    “People’s support for cultural tightness also mediates the link between perceived ecological threat and intentions to vote for nationalist politicians.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Tightness predicts why prejudice is often highest in areas of the world with histories of ecological threat.

    “and that tightness predicts why prejudice is often highest in areas of the world with histories of ecological threat.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Support for cultural tightness predicted higher prejudice.

    “In a general linear model, support for cultural tightness did indeed predict higher prejudice, b = .06, SE = .02, t = 2.37, p = .01, R2 = .01.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 10 incomplete statements measure support for cultural tightness.
  • Findingown data

    Cultural tightness correlated with prejudice across non-industrial societies, b = .85, SE = .28, t = 2.98, p = .005, R2 level 1 = .09.

    “This prediction was supported, b = .85, SE = .28, t = 2.98, p = .005, R2 level 1 = .09.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 19
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 16

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Nation-level cultural tightness predicted people's prejudice; people in tighter nations were more prejudiced than people in looser nations.

    “However, nation-level cultural tightness did predict people’s prejudice, b = .66, SE = .09, t = 7.59, p < .001, R2 = .05, such that people in tighter nations were more prejudiced than people in looser nations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 10 incomplete statements measure support for cultural tightness.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Ecological threat no longer significantly predicted prejudice when tightness was added to the model, indicating full mediation, b = .005, SE = .003, t = 0.15, p = .88, R2level 2 = .03.

    “Ecological threat no longer significantly predicted prejudice when tightness was added to the model, indicating full mediation, b = .005, SE = .003, t = 0.15, p = .88, R2level 2 = .03.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Threat also remained a significant predictor in this model, indicating partial mediation, b = 1.12, SE = .20, t = 5.56, p < .001, R2 level 1 = .35.

    “Threat also remained a significant predictor in this model, b = 1.12, SE = .20, t = 5.56, p < .001, R2 level 1 = .35, indicating partial mediation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Ecological threat did not reach significance in this model, indicating full mediation, b = .03, SE = .08, t = 0.39, p = .70, R2 < .01.

    “A Monte Carlo simulation confirmed significant mediation, and ecological threat did not reach significance in this model, indicating full mediation, CIs [.01,.04], b = .03, SE = .08, t = 0.39, p = .70, R2 < .01.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Support for cultural tightness predicted prejudiced attitudes and xenophobic political preferences.

    “in turn predicting prejudiced attitudes and xenophobic political preferences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 10 incomplete statements measure support for cultural tightness.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The serial mediation path models showed significant indirect effects of threat on support for Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen via support for cultural tightness and prejudice, but no significant direct effects.

    “Both of these path models—displayed in Fig 5—showed significant indirect effects (American 95% CIs [.001, .008]; French 95% CIs [.006, .02]), but no significant direct effects (American 95% CIs [-.05, .04]; French 95% CIs [-.09, .02])”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 10 incomplete statements measure support for cultural tightness.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 2016 US and 2017 French election cycles featured candidates who advocated policies restricting minority groups.
    • Rests on an assumption: The mediation analyses assume no unmeasured confounding of the mediator-outcome relationship.
    • Rests on an assumption: The voting intention measure is a valid indicator of actual voting behavior.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The supplementary materials present further evidence for a relationship between tightness and other forms of prejudice, including a 20-nation field study that documents prejudice against individuals with physical stigmas.

    “While our primary results involved prejudice against people with different social identities, our supplementary materials present further evidence for a relationship between tightness and other forms of prejudice, including a 20-nation field study that documents prejudice against individuals with physical stigmas.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 10 incomplete statements measure support for cultural tightness.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Prejudiced attitudes and political nationalism vary widely around the world.

    “Prejudiced attitudes and political nationalism vary widely around the world, but there has been little research on what predicts this variation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Cultural tightness emerges following threat because it curbs defection and increases coordination.

    “Evolutionary game theory models and behavioral data suggest that cultural tightness emerges following threat because it curbs defection and increases coordination [28–29].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [28] P Roos, 2015, Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: An evolutionary basis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [29] JR Harrington, 2014, Tightness-looseness across the 50 united states, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    There has been little research on what predicts variation in prejudiced attitudes and political nationalism.

    “Prejudiced attitudes and political nationalism vary widely around the world, but there has been little research on what predicts this variation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If tightness is linked to prejudice, then threat provides the ecological basis to understand variation in prejudice through its influence on tight norms.

    “If tightness is linked to prejudice, then threat provides the ecological basis to understand variation in prejudice through its influence on tight norms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    TL theory holds that, during times of threat, groups and individuals gravitate towards cultural tightness because tighter norms can better maintain societal order, stability, and coordination.

    “TL theory holds that, during times of threat, groups and individuals gravitate towards cultural tightness because tighter norms can better maintain societal order, stability, and coordination [24–26].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [24] MJ Gelfand, 2011, & Aycan Z. Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study, Science source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [25] MJ Gelfand, 2017, The Strength of Social Norms Across Human Groups, Perspectives on Psychological Science source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [26] MJ Gelfand, 2016, Societal threat as a moderator of cultural group selection, Behavioral and Brain Sciences source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    While tightness encourages coordination through increased social regulation, it also decreases openness.

    “Yet while tightness encourages coordination through increased social regulation, it also decreases openness [24,30].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [24] MJ Gelfand, 2011, & Aycan Z. Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study, Science source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [30] De S, Nau DS, Gelfand, MJ. Understanding norm change: An evolutionary game-theoretic approach. Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, (International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems); 2017. pp. 1433–1441.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The research tests predictions using a combination of correlational and experimental methods for the link between cultural tightness and prejudice in a variety of comparative samples, consistently replicating results across studies.

    “Indeed, one of the strengths of our research is that we test our predictions using a combination of correlational and experimental methods for the link between cultural tightness and prejudice in a variety of comparative samples, consistently replicating our results across studies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Cultural tightness may also increase prejudice against individuals who are seen as disrupting the social order simply because they practice a minority religion, belong to a minority ethnic group, or have a minority sexual orientation.

    “We theorize that cultural tightness may also increase prejudice against individuals who are seen as disrupting the social order simply because they practice a minority religion, belong to a minority ethnic group, or have a minority sexual orientation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Harrington and Gelfand found that relatively tighter states such as Alabama and Virginia have higher execution rates, less access to alcohol, and more frequent corporal punishment in schools compared to relatively looser states like Nevada or Washington.

    “For example, Harrington and Gelfand [29] found that relatively tighter states such as Alabama and Virginia have higher execution rates, less access to alcohol, and more frequent corporal punishment in schools compared to relatively looser states like Nevada or Washington.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [29] JR Harrington, 2014, Tightness-looseness across the 50 united states, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Study 1 controlled for GDPPP, GINI, and WVS wave.

    “We also controlled for an estimate Gross Domestic Product per Capita at purchasing power parity (GDPPP), inequality (GINI), and WVS wave in order to model the effects of economic development, social inequality, and time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    11,577 individuals from the 50 federal states had data on prejudice.

    “In total, 11,577 individuals from the 50 federal states had data on prejudice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Codes across six domains of cultural tightness converged towards a 1-factor solution and showed high reliability (Cronbach's α = .87).

    “Codes across each of these domains converged towards a 1-factor solution and showed high reliability (Cronbach’s α = .87), and thus we averaged them into a single index representing the overall cultural tightness in each society.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Analyses in Study 3 controlled for income and political conservatism using the same measures as in Study 2.

    “Analyses controlled for income and political conservatism using the same measures as in Study 2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Priming threat alone was not enough to increase prejudice; it needed to accompany an increase in support for cultural tightness in order to increase prejudice.

    “which suggests that priming threat alone was not enough to increase prejudice; rather, priming threat needed to accompany an increase in support for cultural tightness in order to increase prejudice.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 10 incomplete statements measure support for cultural tightness.
    • Rests on an assumption: The mediation analyses assume no unmeasured confounding of the mediator-outcome relationship.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Study 4 controlled for residential mobility.

    “As in Studies 2–3, Study 4 also controlled for residential mobility.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Support for cultural tightness is not the same as living in a tight society.

    “We note that support for cultural tightness is not the same as living in a tight society.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The Standard Cross-Cultural Sample was built to be as geographically diverse as possible in order to minimize the probability of cross-cultural correlations being due to shared cultural ancestry or intercultural borrowing.

    “We sampled 47 societies from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, which was built to be as geographically diverse as possible in order to minimize the probability of cross-cultural correlations being due to shared cultural ancestry or intercultural borrowing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Since tightness is a group-level metric, support for cultural tightness provides an approximation that we predict should be associated at the individual level with many correlates of cultural tightness at the group level.

    “However, since tightness is a group-level metric, support for cultural tightness provides an approximation that we predict should be associated at the individual level with many correlates of cultural tightness at the group level.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This trend has potentially resulted in support for programs such as Brexit in England, a border wall in the United States, and far-right nationalist parties in Austria, Hungary, and Poland, among other European nations.

    “This trend has potentially resulted in support for programs such as Brexit in England, a border wall in the United States, and far-right nationalist parties in Austria, Hungary, and Poland, among other European nations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 2016 US and 2017 French election cycles featured candidates who advocated policies restricting minority groups.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Factors such as religion, inequality, and resource scarcity may predict prejudice and discrimination across cultures.

    “Factors such as religion, inequality, and resource scarcity may predict prejudice and discrimination across cultures [23,62–64].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [23] TR Cohen, 2006, Group morality and intergroup relations: Cross-cultural and experimental evidence, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [62] J Watts, 2016, Ritual human sacrifice promoted and sustained the evolution of stratified societies, Nature source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [63] RA McNamara, 2016, Supernatural punishment, in-group biases, and material insecurity: experiments and ethnography from Yasawa, Fiji, Religion, Brain & Behavior source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [64] P Burns, 2000, Economic insecurity, prejudicial stereotypes, and public opinion on immigration policy, Political Science Quarterly source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Politics play an important role in cultural change, and many historical cases of intergroup hostility have been rooted in prejudiced political leaders and governments.

    “Politics play an important role in cultural change, and many historical cases of intergroup hostility have been rooted in prejudiced political leaders and governments [61].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [61] BZ Tamanaha, 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Voters who believed their country was under threat were more likely to vote for Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen, and their preferences could be fully explained by their support for cultural tightness and prejudice.

    “These findings show that voters who believed their country was under threat were more likely to vote for Donald Trump and Marine LePen, and their preferences could be fully explained by their support for cultural tightness and prejudice.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 10 incomplete statements measure support for cultural tightness.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 2016 US and 2017 French election cycles featured candidates who advocated policies restricting minority groups.
    • Rests on an assumption: The mediation analyses assume no unmeasured confounding of the mediator-outcome relationship.
    • Rests on an assumption: The voting intention measure is a valid indicator of actual voting behavior.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    These events are neither isolated nor random, but instantiations of a broader principle that echoes across human history: Perceptions of ecological threat tighten societies, which in turn is linked to order and social coordination, but also to hostility and intolerance.

    “Our studies show that these events are neither isolated nor random, but instantiations of a broader principle that echoes across human history: Perceptions of ecological threat tighten societies, which in turn is linked to order and social coordination, but also to hostility and intolerance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 10 incomplete statements measure support for cultural tightness.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 2016 US and 2017 French election cycles featured candidates who advocated policies restricting minority groups.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Our findings speak to a recent rise in policies and governments with agendas that are hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants.

    “More generally, our findings speak to a recent rise in policies and governments with agendas that are hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 10 incomplete statements measure support for cultural tightness.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Study 6 controlled for participants' prior political orientation.

    “Study 6 also controlled for participants’ prior political orientation using a 1 (“Democrat”) to 5 (“Republican”) scale.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Although explicit and implicit bias against minorities are decreasing, there is nevertheless a trend toward nationalist governments and policies in recent years.

    “Although in many cases explicit and implicit bias against minorities are decreasing [67], there is nevertheless a trend toward nationalist governments and policies in recent years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [67] TE Charlesworth, 2019, Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: I. Long-term change and stability from 2007 to 2016, Psychological science source

      Not checked in the free run.

33 of 33

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 10 incomplete statements measure support for cultural tightness.

    “All participants were then prompted to endorse an ending to 10 incomplete statements concerning their support for cultural tightness.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 2016 US and 2017 French election cycles featured candidates who advocated policies restricting minority groups.

    “We chose these election cycles because they featured candidates who advocated policies that put restrictions on minority groups.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The mediation analyses assume no unmeasured confounding of the mediator-outcome relationship.

    “As predicted, support for cultural tightness mediated the association between perceived threat and prejudice amongst Americans, 95% CIs [.02, .08], and French participants, 95% CIs [.12, .42].”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The voting intention measure is a valid indicator of actual voting behavior.

    “asked participants who they planned to vote for in the upcoming election.”
4 of 4

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentz = 2.92reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004

    “z = 2.92, p = .004”

  • Consistentz = 3.81reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “z = 3.81, p < .001”

  • Consistentz = 2.01reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .044

    “z = 2.01, p = .04”

  • Consistentz = 2.14reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .032

    “z = 2.14, p = .03”

  • Consistentz = 4.17reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “z = 4.17, p < .001”

  • Consistentz = 6.17reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “z = 6.17, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 1046) = 5.18reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006

    “F(2,1046) = 5.18, p = .006”

  • Consistentz = 2.68reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .007

    “Z = 2.68, p = .007”

  • Consistentz = 4.83reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “Z = 4.83, p < .001”

  • Consistentz = 6.57reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “Z = 6.57, p < .001”

  • Consistentz = 2.37reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .018

    “Z = 2.37, p = .02”

  • Consistentz = 5.95reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “Z = 5.95, p < .001”

  • Consistentz = 6.96reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “Z = 6.96, p < .001”

13 of 13

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Study 1 figure caption counts seven prejudice groups instead of six

    Minor

    Study 1 says its prejudice measure consists of six questions, but the caption for its prejudice figure says it covers seven groups.

  • French threat-tightness coefficient and standard error conflict with its t statistic

    Minor

    The reported coefficient divided by its standard error is about 4.44, not 4.04; the gap is larger than rounding of the printed inputs permits.

    Reported 4.04 · recomputed 4.444444

  • Study 2 threat-adjusted coefficient and standard error do not yield the reported t

    Minor

    Dividing the reported coefficient by its standard error gives about 1.67, not 0.15; rounding at the printed precision cannot account for the difference.

    Reported 0.15 · recomputed 1.666667

  • Study 2 anti-gay coefficient and standard error conflict with its t statistic

    Minor

    The reported coefficient divided by its standard error is 5, not 3.26. Even allowing for rounding of both inputs, the ratio would exceed 3.26.

    Reported 3.26 · recomputed 5

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. A. Tartar, 2017, How the Populist Right is Redrawing the Map of Europe, Bloomberg
  2. JF Dovidio, 1986, Academic Press
  3. L Greenfeld, 2012, Nationalism. The Wiley‐Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization
  4. RA LeVine, 1972, Ethnocentrism: theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior
  5. J Califa Antonio, 1989, Declaring English the Official Language: Prejudice Spoken Here, Harv. CR-CLL Rev, 24, 293
  6. P Turchin, 2015, Ultrasociety: How 10,000 years of war made humans the greatest cooperators on earth
  7. M Gelfand, 2017, The Cultural Fault Line That Is Reshaping Global Politics, Scientific American
  8. CR Ember, 2009, Cross-Cultural Research Methods Rowman Altamira, Lanham, MD
  9. H Lang, 1998, CONAN: An electronic code-text data-base for cross-cultural studies., World Cultures, 9, 13

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jackson, J. C., van Egmond, M., Choi, V. K., Ember, C. R., Halberstadt, J., Balanovic, J., Basker, I. N., Boehnke, K., Buki, N., Fischer, R., Fulop, M., Fulmer, A., Homan, A. C., van Kleef, G. A., Kreemers, L., Schei, V., Szabo, E., Ward, C., & Gelfand, M. J.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Otago (NZ)
  • Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
  • Norwegian School of Economics (NO)
  • National Research University Higher School of Economics (RU)
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Johannes Kepler University of Linz (AT)
Corresponding author
  • Jackson, Joshua Conrad
  • Gelfand, Michele J.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2019-09-06
Volume
14
Issue
9
Pages
e0221953
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0221953
PMC
PMC6730889
OpenAlex
W2971921871
Semantic Scholar
de4913570576094714035d8ee0524e4c062b3bb7
Cited by
144
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 2
FWCI
40.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ELTE Digital Institutional Repository (EDIT) (Eötvös Loránd University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Royster Society of Fellows
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
prejudice, cultural tightness, ecological threats, political nationalism, religious prejudice, national prejudice, sexual orientation prejudice, cultural evolution, intergroup conflict, immigration, radicalization, cultural norms
MeSH terms
Culture, Humans, Politics, Prejudice, Internationality, Ecological and Environmental Phenomena

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review