Normative tightness‐looseness: A research dialogue
介绍了一项关于规范性紧松（TL）理论的研究对话，该理论区分了文化或情境中规范的严格程度，并探讨其对消费者行为的广泛影响，为未来研究提供了方向。
Research Dialogues have been a singular feature of the Journal of Consumer Psychology since 2004. This is the first Research Dialogue under my current Associate Editorship. It is an honor to have been asked by Editor in Chief Amna Kirmani to follow in the inspiring footsteps of Michel Pham, Joe Priester and Richard Petty, and Norbert Schwarz, the previous AE's for this important section of the journal. Their commitment and insight, together with that of the other JCP editors, helped to establish JCP as the place to turn for cutting-edge perspectives on consumer psychology. My goal is to maintain the very high standards they established. This assignment is also a welcome homecoming because I had the pleasure of serving as AE for the inaugural set of Research Dialogues established during Robert Wyer's editorship (2002-2005). The goal is the same now as it was then: To introduce topics that are important and generative in psychology, that are relevant to the consumer domain, but that have not yet been extensively investigated within consumer psychology. Research Dialogues thus represent a unique opportunity to influence research agendas in our field. The current Research Dialogue affords that same opportunity, introducing a psychological research domain on normative tightness-looseness that has a broad range of implications for consumer behavior. Normative processes are fundamentally important factors shaping social behavior, including consumer behavior. But in any given context, how much leeway is there in adhering to norms, how strictly are norms enforced, and how does that impact decisions ? In their target article, Li, Gordon, and Gelfand (2017 – in this issue) describe a multi-level theory distinguishing between tight and loose (TL) cultural contexts, and review the growing body of evidence for this theory. In tight cultures or contexts, norms are clear and adherence to them is expected and strictly enforced. In loose cultures or contexts, people have more leeway to behave as they please. The theory of TL in modern societies (Gelfand et al., 2011) emphasizes the antecedents of TL as an adaptive response to ecological and historical threats. Thus, nations differ in TL (Gelfand et al., 2011; Mu, Kitayama, Han, and Gelfand, 2015), as do the 50 United States (Harrington and Gelfand, 2014), in ways that reflect their unique histories. Organizational cultures and processes can also vary in TL (e.g., Aktas, Gelfand, and Hanges, 2015). The tightness or strength of norms is reinforced by processes observable at the individual, contextual, and societal levels, from individual differences in conscientiousness versus openness to change, self-regulatory patterns, and neural responses to norm violations, to societal differences in political, judicial, and media institutions that pattern responses to diversity, enforce moral order, or foster creativity (Gelfand et al., 2011; Harrington and Gelfand, 2014; Mu et al., 2015). In their target article, Li, Gordon, and Gelfand not only review this evidence, they posit a fascinating array of consequences for consumer behavior that are yet to be studied. In their commentary, Lin, Dahl, and Argo (2017 – in this issue) raise multiple important questions about TL and consumption that represent a worthwhile agenda for future research. Drawing on their previous work on norm violations and norm enforcement among consumers (e.g., Lin, Dahl, and Argo, 2013), Lin et al. highlight the intriguing possibility that methods of punishment for violation of consumer norms may depend on the tightness or looseness of the consumption context (e.g., luxury retail setting versus casual buffet restaurant). They also point out that TL and consumption may influence each other bi-directionally. For instance, advertising campaigns such as Dove soap's Real Beauty campaign may loosen norms surrounding personal appearance. Finally, Lin et al. draw attention to the distinct implications of TL at individual stages in the consumption process (pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase). In their commentary, Torelli and Rodas (2017 – in this issue) offer valuable context by linking the TL dimension to other cross-cultural distinctions and identifying the novel insights afforded by a focus on TL. For instance, they discuss differences between TL and the horizontal-vertical distinction (Triandis and Gelfand, 1998), the subject of a previous Research Dialogue (Shavitt, Lalwani, Zhang, and Torelli, 2006). Torelli and Rodas also address the implications of TL for fundamental issues in branding. For instance, they point out that tighter contexts should give rise to clearer and stronger brand meanings due to a greater likelihood of social consensus in such contexts. This suggests that the success of branding efforts linked to symbolic meanings may be facilitated by normative tightness, an interesting hypothesis for future research. In their response to the commentaries, Gelfand, Li, & Gordon (2017 – this issue) endorse the valuable research agendas proposed by the commentators and offer their own perspective on the path forward in studying the interplay between TL and consumer behavior.