Michele Gelfand makes the case for considering cultures as existing along a continuum from “tight” to “loose” depending on the strictness of these rules.
A tight culture may have strong societal expectations and minimal patience for deviation from these norms. A loose culture then would be highly tolerant of a diversity of ways of living and behaving.
It is for this reason that a range of peoples from different populations contributes to a looseness because there has to be an acceptance that people want to do things differently. Anonymity also contributes to looseness because there is no rumour mill keeping the people in line out of concern for one’s reputation.
Tighter cultures may manifest as a reaction to resource constraints and denser populations. It may become more important in times of scarcity to behave predictably and in accordance with what is best for others as well as one’s self.
It’s not clear that an individual can be strictly defines as fitting to either tight or loose. Some people may be more amenable to different cultures, but these same people bight exhibit self-monitoring behaviour fitting to a tighter culture. Impulse control, something valued by the majority, is also more suited to tight cultures.
Interestingly there is a class divide in attitudes towards rules which has been shown to be present as young as 3 years old. Working class people attest to valuing rules and believing in their importance, whereas on average upper class people view them as a nuisance and obstacle to expression. Tolerance of ambiguity then may be a privilege that only the comfortably well off can afford.