AUTHOR=Leng Jie , Ma Hang , Lv Xiaojun , Hu Ping 

TITLE=Validation of the Chinese Cultural Tightness–Looseness Scale and General Tightness–Looseness Scale

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Psychology

VOLUME=14

YEAR=2023

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1131868

DOI=10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1131868

ISSN=1664-1078

ABSTRACT=<sec><title>Introduction</title><p>This study aims to revise the Cultural Tightness–Looseness Scale (CTLS) and General Tightness–Looseness Scale (GTLS), and explore the group heterogeneity of tightness–looseness perception in Chinese populations.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>Sample 1 (<italic>n</italic> = 2,388) was used for item analysis and exploratory factor analysis, and sample 2 (<italic>n</italic> = 2,385) was used for confirmatory factor analysis and latent profile analysis. Sample 3 (<italic>n</italic> = 512) was used for the reliability test and criterion validity test, among which 162 participants were used for the test–retest reliability examination after a four-week interval. Measurements included the CTLS, GTLS, International Personality Item Pool, Personal Need for Structure Scale, and Campbell Index of Well-Being.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>The revised CTLS contained four items and retained a single-dimensional structure. The revised GTLS consisted of eight items divided into two dimensions: Compliance with Norms and Social Sanctions. Latent profile analysis extracted two profiles on both CTLS and GTLS scores, indicating that the sample can be divided into two subgroups: high and low perception of tightness.</p></sec><sec><title>Discussion</title><p>The Chinese versions of the CTLS and GTLS can be used as valid and reliable measures of tightness–looseness perception in a Chinese population.</p></sec>