Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to Tom Gibbs and James & April Collier some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    Washington vs. Oregon: Who's more uptight?

    A new study shows how cultural and political attitudes are state specific - and shaped by nature.
    Cultural attitudes differ among states and influence voting patterns.

    Cultural attitudes differ among states and influence voting patterns. Flickr: Creative Commons

    Legal pot, same-sex marriage, creativity, artistic excellence. It's all part of being Left Coasters, “loose” in the way we view life, government and politics. So say two University of Maryland psychologists in a paper titled, “Tightness-looseness across the 50 united states”, and published by the National Academy of Sciences. (You can find it here.)

    Things like naked bicycle parades, hempfests, gay mayors and micro-brewery entrepreneurs also figure into defining who’s loose and who’s stuck in a tightness mire of conformity and distrust. By the way, Washington is (very slightly) tighter than Oregon, which is tighter than California. (Though Jerry Brown is still the man!)

    Using a lot of very solid numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau and other federal agencies, as well as peer-reviewed publications of fellow scholars, study authors Jesse R. Harrington and Michele J. Gelfand characterize the Left Coast and Northeast as “loose”, and the old Confederacy and its border states as “tight”. They find Utah, with its huge Mormon base, “looser” than states like Ohio and Pennsylvania; and the Dakotas more “loose” than the Carolinas. Mother Nature, say the authors, factors into these distinctions.

    According to Harrington and Gelfand, “Tight states experience greater ecological vulnerabilities than loose states” — as in a propensity for floods, tornadoes and disease. These nasty conditions produce a population that is conscientious, cautious, controlled, focused on prevention and extremely fond of order. Contrast that, say the authors, with looser, less disaster-prone states that can afford less constrained behavior and greater flexibility in private and public life.

    The Civil War is 150 years in the past, but the authors suggest that former slave states, threatened by the loss of their “way of life,” are still “tight” when it comes to law enforcement, military enlistments and dependence on military bases. Washington has a larger military presence than Oregon and California, proportionally; a reason, perhaps, that it is slightly tighter than those other Left Coast states. Tight states enjoy greater social stability and lower rates of drug and alcohol use. But they also exhibit more gender inequality, greater rates of incarceration and less innovation and creativity.

    Studies of “tight vs. loose” are not new, but they focused primarily at the nation level. The United States is really, as the study's title suggests, a bunch of (sometimes) united states. The authors quantify the differences, and they are stark. Mississippi, the tightest state, gets a 78.86 score on the “tightness chart.” California, at the opposite end of the scale, earns a 27.37. (Washington is 31.06; Oregon 30.07).

    Oh yes, I thought you would never ask — tightness scores do correlate to how we vote. The 15 “loosest states” all voted for President Obama in 2012 — except for Alaska. All but one (Virginia) of the 15 “tightest states” went for Mitt Romney.

    There you go.

    Floyd J. McKay, professor of journalism emeritus at Western Washington University, was a print and broadcast journalist in Oregon for three decades. Recipient of a DuPont-Columbia Broadcast Award for documentaries, and a Nieman Fellowship at Harvard, he is also a historian and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Washington. He resides in Bellingham and can be reached at floydmckay@comcast.net.

    Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


    Posted Mon, Jun 2, 9:19 a.m. Inappropriate

    It's a long read, but Albion's Seed by David Hackett Fischer can give a lot of insight about regional attitudes in the US.


    Posted Mon, Jun 2, 10:20 a.m. Inappropriate

    The study seems to have some merit. It would be interesting to know the assumptions, data collection techniques, and analysis methodology.

    I do know of one incredibly "tight" subject in the greater Seattle area. If someone is talking about gun safety, there is no need to wait for a thoughtful reaction if you invite that person to learn it first hand with a firearm in hand.

    Posted Mon, Jun 2, 10:37 a.m. Inappropriate

    The hyperlink in my story sends you to supplemental information; for those wanting the full text of the piece the proper link is:
    The authors didn't look at gun safety, maybe too obvious for them or perhaps the data was not sufficient.
    riverworld, I think you will find the research methods, etc. either in the full text or the supplements.

    Posted Tue, Jun 3, 2:17 p.m. Inappropriate

    I'm having a hard time making this "tight" versus "loose" classification system explain why "...former slave states, threatened by the loss of their 'way of life,' are still 'tight' when it comes to law enforcement..." yet "loose" states like those on the "left coast" accept an almost crippling level of regulation and taxation. I'd love to find out how the authors square that with their theory.


    Posted Wed, Jun 4, 8:10 p.m. Inappropriate

    What are the demographics? The more young, the looser, the more old, the tighter, it seems to me.

    Of course, California doesn't have a "tight" eastern side like Oregon and Washington.

    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »