29 Mayıs 2015 Cuma
the art of manliness
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/11/12/manly-honor-part-iv-the-gentlemen-and-the-roughs-the-stoic-christian-code-of-honor-in-the-american-north/
http://www.chivalrynow.net/intro.htm
Looking to the past for guidance, we find that western culture enjoyed an inspiring code of values and behaviors that not only greatly improved social expectations, but still tugs at the heartstrings of people even today. It was called chivalry, and had a strong influence in developing western concepts of justice, courtesy, personal honor, gentlemanly behavior, romantic love, and a whole variety of attributes that we still value.
http://www.nerdyfeminist.com/2012/01/no-chivalry-thanks.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/200901/exploring-the-items-used-measure-benevolent-sexism
http://www.chivalrynow.net/intro.htm
Looking to the past for guidance, we find that western culture enjoyed an inspiring code of values and behaviors that not only greatly improved social expectations, but still tugs at the heartstrings of people even today. It was called chivalry, and had a strong influence in developing western concepts of justice, courtesy, personal honor, gentlemanly behavior, romantic love, and a whole variety of attributes that we still value.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/200901/exploring-the-items-used-measure-benevolent-sexism
21 Mayıs 2015 Perşembe
20 Mayıs 2015 Çarşamba
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY (Cheating in an exam)
X and Y are good friends and they are both taking the same course in the university. In the final exam of this course, X arrives to the class and at that moment Y waves at X and calls X over. X goes next to Y and sits in the next seat. Y seems stressed and panicked, and tells to Y that she hasn't been able to study for the exam and that she needs X's help. Y asks once you are finished with your exam, could you be able to switch papers? X feels well-prepared about her knowledge and even though he is a bit uncomfortable about this situation, X decides to help Y. During the exam, they switch papers and X also writes the answers in Y's sheet then they switch it back. At the end both of them pass their exam.
ARKADAS KAZIGI - DISHONESTY tOWARDS A FRIEND (Cheating a friend)
How loyal is Y?
How fair is Y?
How honest is Y?
How moral is Y?
loyalty --->
fairness --->
honesty ---> moral judgment of Y.
TALK AFTER ROGER
Further work, however, needs to be done to examine some unanswered questions. For example, the question of whether masculine and feminine honor represent gender-specific applications of moral codes could be examined more directly, by asking questions about behavior appropriate to men and women and its impact on the honor of another person who is male or female.
Roger sunu demek istedi, masculine ve feminine honour measure'larindaki honour item'lari cok gucsuz kaliyor ve bu honour'i beliefs'e indiriyor, Honour'in specifik, 3-5 konseptten olusmus beliefs ve values'a indirgenmesi dogru mu? Her onur kulturunde, hangi moral normlar veya degerler onemliyse o degerler honourable olmuyor mu? Yani honour her kulturde var, ama hem honour'in derecesi degisiyor hem de neyin honourable oldugu kulturlere gore degisiyor.
To be more specific, what is feminine and masculine honour? What kinds of personality traits/behaviors would damage a man's or woman's reputation/honour in a society? What damages one's honour?
Do people perceive a man/woman who violates gendered conventions (STUDY 1), gender roles, other personality traits and behaviors that are associated with masculinity and femininity (such as wearing a skirt for males, straightening hair for males, etc.) as dishonorable?
So dishonourable for what? For breaking the rules, conventions, gender roles?
And what happens, are they perceived as having an immoral character? (ahlaksiz karakter) Do the behavior is condemned (ayiplamak)?
What would happen if a man/woman has the reputation of wearing a skirt to work, but he is not sterile, he is assertive, has the guts to respond with aggression when someone steals from him...is this person perceived as someone having honour? Or not? If not, it seems that the honour scales are not working well.
Honour is a multifaceted construct
- it is associated to public reputation, people defend it vigorously
- it extends to the family/community
- includes some unique concepts like retaliation norms, integrity, morality
How gendered is masculine and feminine honour?
Much much men should be that way and how much women should be this way?
In the first study you look at purely conventional ways - gender appearance norms
We should also look at behavioral/personality traits to see which gender roles are related to masculine and feminine honour.
For instance show a scenario of a woman who acts/looks very feminine but also very assertive/tough, or a macho looking/acting man who is very caring.
Both men and women should be equally concerned about sexual assertiveness - to see the double standard???
To what extent is adhering to masc/feminine honour is about conventions, behavioral traits, personality traits?
Look at the concepts of masculine and feminine honor and dig into them and take these concepts and create scenarios. There should be not much difference in men and women in masculine honour.
Separate the concepts from sexuality. Take retaliation norms for instance. Or both women and men care about reproducing children for instance. Some masculine honour concerns are unisex concerns.
patriarchal society vs. macho society vs. peasant culture (where women are more dominant)
-------------------------------------
In such environments, reputation becomes a valued commodity because it can be used to ward off threats. Men who are willing to defend their interests at the faintest hint of disrespect are unlikely to accept mistreatment without a fight and, therefore, should be publically recognized as individuals who cannot easily be taken advantage of.
Roger sunu demek istedi, masculine ve feminine honour measure'larindaki honour item'lari cok gucsuz kaliyor ve bu honour'i beliefs'e indiriyor, Honour'in specifik, 3-5 konseptten olusmus beliefs ve values'a indirgenmesi dogru mu? Her onur kulturunde, hangi moral normlar veya degerler onemliyse o degerler honourable olmuyor mu? Yani honour her kulturde var, ama hem honour'in derecesi degisiyor hem de neyin honourable oldugu kulturlere gore degisiyor.
To be more specific, what is feminine and masculine honour? What kinds of personality traits/behaviors would damage a man's or woman's reputation/honour in a society? What damages one's honour?
Do people perceive a man/woman who violates gendered conventions (STUDY 1), gender roles, other personality traits and behaviors that are associated with masculinity and femininity (such as wearing a skirt for males, straightening hair for males, etc.) as dishonorable?
So dishonourable for what? For breaking the rules, conventions, gender roles?
And what happens, are they perceived as having an immoral character? (ahlaksiz karakter) Do the behavior is condemned (ayiplamak)?
What would happen if a man/woman has the reputation of wearing a skirt to work, but he is not sterile, he is assertive, has the guts to respond with aggression when someone steals from him...is this person perceived as someone having honour? Or not? If not, it seems that the honour scales are not working well.
Honour is a multifaceted construct
- it is associated to public reputation, people defend it vigorously
- it extends to the family/community
- includes some unique concepts like retaliation norms, integrity, morality
How gendered is masculine and feminine honour?
Much much men should be that way and how much women should be this way?
In the first study you look at purely conventional ways - gender appearance norms
We should also look at behavioral/personality traits to see which gender roles are related to masculine and feminine honour.
For instance show a scenario of a woman who acts/looks very feminine but also very assertive/tough, or a macho looking/acting man who is very caring.
Both men and women should be equally concerned about sexual assertiveness - to see the double standard???
To what extent is adhering to masc/feminine honour is about conventions, behavioral traits, personality traits?
Look at the concepts of masculine and feminine honor and dig into them and take these concepts and create scenarios. There should be not much difference in men and women in masculine honour.
Separate the concepts from sexuality. Take retaliation norms for instance. Or both women and men care about reproducing children for instance. Some masculine honour concerns are unisex concerns.
patriarchal society vs. macho society vs. peasant culture (where women are more dominant)
-------------------------------------
In such environments, reputation becomes a valued commodity because it can be used to ward off threats. Men who are willing to defend their interests at the faintest hint of disrespect are unlikely to accept mistreatment without a fight and, therefore, should be publically recognized as individuals who cannot easily be taken advantage of.
Moral Psychology Is Relationship Regulation: Moral Motives for Unity, Hierarchy, Equality, and Proportionality
We extend relational models theory (Fiske, 1991)
to identify 4 fundamental and distinct moral motives. Unity is the motive to care for and support the
integrity of in-groups by avoiding or eliminating threats of contamination and providing aid and
protection based on need or empathic compassion. Hierarchy is the motive to respect rank in social
groups where superiors are entitled to deference and respect but must also lead, guide, direct, and protect
subordinates. Equality is the motive for balanced, in-kind reciprocity, equal treatment, equal say, and
equal opportunity. Proportionality is the motive for rewards and punishments to be proportionate to merit,
benefits to be calibrated to contributions, and judgments to be based on a utilitarian calculus of costs and
benefits. The 4 moral motives are universal, but cultures, ideologies, and individuals differ in where they
activate these motives and how they implement them. Unlike existing theories (Haidt, 2007; Hauser,
2006; Turiel, 1983), relationship regulation theory predicts that any action, including violence, unequal
treatment, and “impure” acts, may be perceived as morally correct depending on the moral motive
employed and how the relevant social relationship is construed.
to identify 4 fundamental and distinct moral motives. Unity is the motive to care for and support the
integrity of in-groups by avoiding or eliminating threats of contamination and providing aid and
protection based on need or empathic compassion. Hierarchy is the motive to respect rank in social
groups where superiors are entitled to deference and respect but must also lead, guide, direct, and protect
subordinates. Equality is the motive for balanced, in-kind reciprocity, equal treatment, equal say, and
equal opportunity. Proportionality is the motive for rewards and punishments to be proportionate to merit,
benefits to be calibrated to contributions, and judgments to be based on a utilitarian calculus of costs and
benefits. The 4 moral motives are universal, but cultures, ideologies, and individuals differ in where they
activate these motives and how they implement them. Unlike existing theories (Haidt, 2007; Hauser,
2006; Turiel, 1983), relationship regulation theory predicts that any action, including violence, unequal
treatment, and “impure” acts, may be perceived as morally correct depending on the moral motive
employed and how the relevant social relationship is construed.
19 Mayıs 2015 Salı
If something (an act) has a moral status and perceived immoral, people overjustify why it is wrong more so than an act without a moral status.
If something (an act) has a moral status and perceived immoral, people overjustify why it is wrong more so than an act without a moral status.
· Individual moral censure (kinama) is licensed (izinli). In Turkey a lot people can express irritation or outrage (maybe not expressed but they would feel irritated and outraged) if certain honour norms are broken such as loyalty, politeness, reciprocation, and retaliation, breaking promises, not keeping secrets, dishonesty, trustworthiness. In terms of masculine honour norms for instance, a woman would feel hurt, excluded, irritated, outraged if her partner does not chase him off or show his presence (as a form of revenge) to another man who is hitting on her.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MORALIZATION
Moralization is important because as an entity acquires (usually
negative) moral status, it influences society and individual lives in different
and more powerful ways. Following are some results of
moralization:
· Governments may take action, as through taxation or establishment
of prohibitions.
· Other institutions, such as foundations and schools, become
inclined to provide support for the requisite changes in society and
individual preferences.
· The scientific enterprise, through both funding channels and individual
choices, promotes the discovery of relationships and
processes that confirm the new moral entity.
· Individual moral censure (kinama) is licensed. In the United States, one can
now approach a smoker in many situations and express irritation or
outrage.
· Moral entities generally become more central to the self. Morality
promotes overjustification (Frey, 1986). Moral vegetarians (people
who reject meat primarily because of moral and ecological issues)
have more nonmoral reasons for avoiding meat than health vegetarians
(people who reject meat primarily because of health issues)
have nonhealth reasons (Rozin, Markwith, & Stoess, 1997).
· Because of self-relevance, morally laden entities are likely to
become internalized. Preferences that become internalized are
more durable, require less attention to maintain, and are more
resistant to temptation. A moral vegetarian generally finds it easier
to resist meat than does a health vegetarian (Rozin et al., 1997).
· Parent-to-child transmission becomes more robust. There are surprisingly
low correlations between parents’ and children’s preferences
(e.g., for food, music) and much more substantial
parent-child correlations for values (e.g., political preferences, attitudes
to abortion) (Cavalli-Sforza, Feldman, Chen, & Dornbusch,
1982; Rozin, 1991).
· Many moral prohibitions relate to disgust, a powerful emotion of
negative socialization (Rozin, Haidt, & McCauley, 1993). When
disgust becomes linked to an entity or activity, rejection or avoidance
of that activity becomes highly motivated and internalized.
Moral vegetarians find meat more disgusting than do health vegetarians
(Rozin et al., 1997).
· Individual moral censure (kinama) is licensed (izinli). In Turkey a lot people can express irritation or outrage (maybe not expressed but they would feel irritated and outraged) if certain honour norms are broken such as loyalty, politeness, reciprocation, and retaliation, breaking promises, not keeping secrets, dishonesty, trustworthiness. In terms of masculine honour norms for instance, a woman would feel hurt, excluded, irritated, outraged if her partner does not chase him off or show his presence (as a form of revenge) to another man who is hitting on her.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MORALIZATION
Moralization is important because as an entity acquires (usually
negative) moral status, it influences society and individual lives in different
and more powerful ways. Following are some results of
moralization:
· Governments may take action, as through taxation or establishment
of prohibitions.
· Other institutions, such as foundations and schools, become
inclined to provide support for the requisite changes in society and
individual preferences.
· The scientific enterprise, through both funding channels and individual
choices, promotes the discovery of relationships and
processes that confirm the new moral entity.
· Individual moral censure (kinama) is licensed. In the United States, one can
now approach a smoker in many situations and express irritation or
outrage.
· Moral entities generally become more central to the self. Morality
promotes overjustification (Frey, 1986). Moral vegetarians (people
who reject meat primarily because of moral and ecological issues)
have more nonmoral reasons for avoiding meat than health vegetarians
(people who reject meat primarily because of health issues)
have nonhealth reasons (Rozin, Markwith, & Stoess, 1997).
· Because of self-relevance, morally laden entities are likely to
become internalized. Preferences that become internalized are
more durable, require less attention to maintain, and are more
resistant to temptation. A moral vegetarian generally finds it easier
to resist meat than does a health vegetarian (Rozin et al., 1997).
· Parent-to-child transmission becomes more robust. There are surprisingly
low correlations between parents’ and children’s preferences
(e.g., for food, music) and much more substantial
parent-child correlations for values (e.g., political preferences, attitudes
to abortion) (Cavalli-Sforza, Feldman, Chen, & Dornbusch,
1982; Rozin, 1991).
· Many moral prohibitions relate to disgust, a powerful emotion of
negative socialization (Rozin, Haidt, & McCauley, 1993). When
disgust becomes linked to an entity or activity, rejection or avoidance
of that activity becomes highly motivated and internalized.
Moral vegetarians find meat more disgusting than do health vegetarians
(Rozin et al., 1997).
14 Mayıs 2015 Perşembe
PHD RESEARCH WORK
FOLLOW-UP STUDY ON THE 1ST STUDY:
The first study conducted looked at the judgments of people with gender-nonconforming appearances and expressions by people who show high concerns for masculine and feminine honour. This study found that a masculine appearing man was perceived as having a more warm, moral, dominant and popular character by male particioants who strongly endorse masculine honour than by those who weakly endorse masculine honour. A masculine appearing man was also judged as more moral and popular than a feminine appearing man for male participants with strong masculine honour concerns. We also found differences in behavioral intentions and emotional reactions between high and low masculine honour endorsers. Male participants who strongly endorse masculine honour reported more willingness to be friends with a masculine appearing man than male participants who weakly endorsed masculine honour. Additionally, a masculine appearing man elicited much less frustration, anger, shame and disgust than a feminine appearing man on male participants who strongly endorsed masculine honour, and a masculine appearing man elicited these negative emotions much less on male participants who strongly endorsed masculine honour than those who weakly endorsed masculine honour.
In the case of a female participants, a feminine appearing woman was perceived as having less competence, moral character and warmth by female participants who weakly endorsed feminine honour than those who strongly endorsed feminine honour. Interestingly also, low feminine honour females judged a feminine appearing woman more negatively in these trait domains than a masculine appearing woman. In addition, females who strongly endorsed feminine honour rated a feminine appearing woman as more popular than those who weakly endorsed feminine honour, and female participants with high feminine honour concerns rated a feminine appearing woman as more popular than a masculine appearing woman. In terms of emotional reactions, a feminine appearing woman elicited more comfort among the high feminine honour females than among those with low feminine honour concerns. Females with low feminine honour concerns felt more proud and fondness by a masculine appearing woman than a feminine appearing woman.
Overall, the results of this study shows that males with high masculine and females with high feminine honour concerns rate the gender nonconforming males and females more negatively, respectively. Next study on this line of research should look at causal effects, by manipulating a concern for reputation or honour threat, and examining whether people show masculine or feminine preferences themselves in order to restrore their damaged honour/reputation.
PROPOSAL: Maintenance and Protection of Honor by behaving in Gender-conforming ways
Even though it seems like “honour” in the contemporary Western society is an outdated concept, in some societies honour is still a salient socially organizing theme (e.g., known as honour cultures: Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, Latin American countries and southern US). Honour codes define moral and respectable behaviour in highly gender-specific ways, and psychologists have paid well
attention to the link between honour codes and the legitimization of domestic violence and male aggression (e.g., Cohen, et al, 1996; Dietrich & Schuette, 2013; Vandello & Cohen, 2003, 2004: Vandello, et al., 2009). Specifically, Vandello and colleagues (2003) found support for the hypothesis that men who strongly abide by the honour codes resort to violence as a means to repair their damaged masculine honour. Yet we know much less about the non-violent manifestations and affirmations of honour in the everyday context and how honour codes may be related to subtle sexism. For instance, how does honour play a role in making men and women confirm to the society’s understanding of masculinity and femininity, and how does this reflect in their choices and behaviours? Do successful women who are in prestigious positions in society (e.g., leaders or managers) pose a threat to men’s honour, and likewise do men in domestic roles (e.g., childcarers and house husbands) pose a threat to women’s honour? When men and women feel that their honour is threatened, are they more likely to prefer romantic partners who are in more traditional roles (men in breadwinning roles, women in caretaking roles)? In this research project, we will investigate these questions using comparative designs that include members of honour (e.g., Pakistani, Indian) vs. non-honour cultures (e.g., white British).
Actually, yeah I like the idea for the first study we did :) I should definitely carry on and do a manipulation study to see if men make more masculine choices and women make more feminine choices to restore their honour. That is that. We found similar trend of results for judgment, emotional reactions and behavioural intention measures. I should quickly set a manipulation study in qualtrics and that can stay ready. I want to set up studies and make them ready and during the term get data for them simultaneously...
Honour Manipulation (Attack vs. Enhance):
In the Honour Attack condition: Humiliate someone
In the Honour Enhancing condition: Praise someone
See Uskul (2012) Honour Bound: Cultural Construction of Honour in the US and in Turkey
By the end of summer I want to put up a manipulation of honour study, and then see if men and women restore their honour by making more masculine and feminine choices (this can be studied in different levels when masculinity and femininity can be affirmed and publicly displayed - from activity/food preferences to relationship choices).
RESEARCH QUESTION FOR THE 2ND STUDY:
MORALIZATION OF CHARACTERS/ACTIONS WHO VIOLATE HONOR NORMS:
Do people in honour cultures especially judge behaviours that violate the norms in moral terms?
Do inappropriate behaviour gets judged as less moral and less honorable for Turkish participants than for British? (Onur kulturlerindeki insanlar norm disina cikan davranislari daha mi cok ahlaki acidan degerlendiriyor?)
OTHER RESEARCH QUESTIONS TO EXPLORE ON HONOUR:
The mediation studies.
The first study conducted looked at the judgments of people with gender-nonconforming appearances and expressions by people who show high concerns for masculine and feminine honour. This study found that a masculine appearing man was perceived as having a more warm, moral, dominant and popular character by male particioants who strongly endorse masculine honour than by those who weakly endorse masculine honour. A masculine appearing man was also judged as more moral and popular than a feminine appearing man for male participants with strong masculine honour concerns. We also found differences in behavioral intentions and emotional reactions between high and low masculine honour endorsers. Male participants who strongly endorse masculine honour reported more willingness to be friends with a masculine appearing man than male participants who weakly endorsed masculine honour. Additionally, a masculine appearing man elicited much less frustration, anger, shame and disgust than a feminine appearing man on male participants who strongly endorsed masculine honour, and a masculine appearing man elicited these negative emotions much less on male participants who strongly endorsed masculine honour than those who weakly endorsed masculine honour.
In the case of a female participants, a feminine appearing woman was perceived as having less competence, moral character and warmth by female participants who weakly endorsed feminine honour than those who strongly endorsed feminine honour. Interestingly also, low feminine honour females judged a feminine appearing woman more negatively in these trait domains than a masculine appearing woman. In addition, females who strongly endorsed feminine honour rated a feminine appearing woman as more popular than those who weakly endorsed feminine honour, and female participants with high feminine honour concerns rated a feminine appearing woman as more popular than a masculine appearing woman. In terms of emotional reactions, a feminine appearing woman elicited more comfort among the high feminine honour females than among those with low feminine honour concerns. Females with low feminine honour concerns felt more proud and fondness by a masculine appearing woman than a feminine appearing woman.
Overall, the results of this study shows that males with high masculine and females with high feminine honour concerns rate the gender nonconforming males and females more negatively, respectively. Next study on this line of research should look at causal effects, by manipulating a concern for reputation or honour threat, and examining whether people show masculine or feminine preferences themselves in order to restrore their damaged honour/reputation.
PROPOSAL: Maintenance and Protection of Honor by behaving in Gender-conforming ways
Even though it seems like “honour” in the contemporary Western society is an outdated concept, in some societies honour is still a salient socially organizing theme (e.g., known as honour cultures: Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, Latin American countries and southern US). Honour codes define moral and respectable behaviour in highly gender-specific ways, and psychologists have paid well
attention to the link between honour codes and the legitimization of domestic violence and male aggression (e.g., Cohen, et al, 1996; Dietrich & Schuette, 2013; Vandello & Cohen, 2003, 2004: Vandello, et al., 2009). Specifically, Vandello and colleagues (2003) found support for the hypothesis that men who strongly abide by the honour codes resort to violence as a means to repair their damaged masculine honour. Yet we know much less about the non-violent manifestations and affirmations of honour in the everyday context and how honour codes may be related to subtle sexism. For instance, how does honour play a role in making men and women confirm to the society’s understanding of masculinity and femininity, and how does this reflect in their choices and behaviours? Do successful women who are in prestigious positions in society (e.g., leaders or managers) pose a threat to men’s honour, and likewise do men in domestic roles (e.g., childcarers and house husbands) pose a threat to women’s honour? When men and women feel that their honour is threatened, are they more likely to prefer romantic partners who are in more traditional roles (men in breadwinning roles, women in caretaking roles)? In this research project, we will investigate these questions using comparative designs that include members of honour (e.g., Pakistani, Indian) vs. non-honour cultures (e.g., white British).
Actually, yeah I like the idea for the first study we did :) I should definitely carry on and do a manipulation study to see if men make more masculine choices and women make more feminine choices to restore their honour. That is that. We found similar trend of results for judgment, emotional reactions and behavioural intention measures. I should quickly set a manipulation study in qualtrics and that can stay ready. I want to set up studies and make them ready and during the term get data for them simultaneously...
Honour Manipulation (Attack vs. Enhance):
In the Honour Attack condition: Humiliate someone
In the Honour Enhancing condition: Praise someone
See Uskul (2012) Honour Bound: Cultural Construction of Honour in the US and in Turkey
By the end of summer I want to put up a manipulation of honour study, and then see if men and women restore their honour by making more masculine and feminine choices (this can be studied in different levels when masculinity and femininity can be affirmed and publicly displayed - from activity/food preferences to relationship choices).
RESEARCH QUESTION FOR THE 2ND STUDY:
MORALIZATION OF CHARACTERS/ACTIONS WHO VIOLATE HONOR NORMS:
Do people in honour cultures especially judge behaviours that violate the norms in moral terms?
Do inappropriate behaviour gets judged as less moral and less honorable for Turkish participants than for British? (Onur kulturlerindeki insanlar norm disina cikan davranislari daha mi cok ahlaki acidan degerlendiriyor?)
OTHER RESEARCH QUESTIONS TO EXPLORE ON HONOUR:
The mediation studies.
13 Mayıs 2015 Çarşamba
STUDY 1: CONTINUATION - GENDER NONCONFORMITY
Present scenarios about behavior appropriate to men and women and ask participants how would this person (Jess or Mike) impact the honour of other men and women or (partner, sibling, parent, friend, neighbour, community, strangers)?
2) Maintenance and Protection of Honor
Even though it seems like “honour” in the contemporary Western society is an
outdated concept, in some societies honour is still a salient socially organizing
theme (e.g., known as honour cultures: Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, Latin
American countries and southern US). Honour codes define moral and respectable
behaviour in highly gender-specific ways, and psychologists have paid well
attention to the link between honour codes and the legitimization of domestic
violence and male aggression (e.g., Cohen, et al, 1996; Dietrich & Schuette,
2013; Vandello & Cohen, 2003, 2004: Vandello, et al., 2009). Specifically,
Vandello and colleagues (2003) found support for the hypothesis that men who
strongly abide by the honour codes resort to violence as a means to repair their
damaged masculine honour. Yet we know much less about the non-violent
manifestations and affirmations of honour in the everyday context and how
honour codes may be related to subtle sexism. For instance, how does honour
play a role in making men and women confirm to the society’s understanding of
masculinity and femininity, and how does this reflect in their choices and
behaviours? Do successful women who are in prestigious positions in society
(e.g., leaders or managers) pose a threat to men’s honour, and likewise do men
in domestic roles (e.g., childcarers and house husbands) pose a threat to
women’s honour? When men and women feel that their honour is threatened, are
they more likely to prefer romantic partners who are in more traditional roles
(men in breadwinning roles, women in caretaking roles)? In this research project,
we will investigate these questions using comparative designs that include
members of honour (e.g., Pakistani, Indian) vs. non-honour cultures (e.g., white
British).
Selected relevant papers:
Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R., & Weaver, J., & Wasti, A. (2009).
The links between precarious manhood and physical aggression. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 623-634.
Cross, S., Uskul, A. K., Gercek-Swing, B., Sunbay, Z., Ataca, B., & Karakitapoglu
Z. (2014). Cultural prototypes and dimensions of honor. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 232-249.
Dietrich, D. M., & Schuett, J. M. (2013). Culture of honor and attitudes toward
intimate partner violence in Latinos. Sage open, 3(2), 2158244013489685.
Uskul, A. K., Cross, S.,Gercek-Swing, B., Sunbay, Z., & Ataca, B. (2012). Honor
bound: The cultural construction of honor in Turkey and the Northern
US. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 1131-1151.
Vandello, J. A., Cohen, D., Grandon, R., & Franiuk, R. (2009). Stand by your
man: Indirect prescriptions for honorable violence and feminine loyalty in
Canada, Chile, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 40, 81-104.
2) Maintenance and Protection of Honor
Even though it seems like “honour” in the contemporary Western society is an
outdated concept, in some societies honour is still a salient socially organizing
theme (e.g., known as honour cultures: Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, Latin
American countries and southern US). Honour codes define moral and respectable
behaviour in highly gender-specific ways, and psychologists have paid well
attention to the link between honour codes and the legitimization of domestic
violence and male aggression (e.g., Cohen, et al, 1996; Dietrich & Schuette,
2013; Vandello & Cohen, 2003, 2004: Vandello, et al., 2009). Specifically,
Vandello and colleagues (2003) found support for the hypothesis that men who
strongly abide by the honour codes resort to violence as a means to repair their
damaged masculine honour. Yet we know much less about the non-violent
manifestations and affirmations of honour in the everyday context and how
honour codes may be related to subtle sexism. For instance, how does honour
play a role in making men and women confirm to the society’s understanding of
masculinity and femininity, and how does this reflect in their choices and
behaviours? Do successful women who are in prestigious positions in society
(e.g., leaders or managers) pose a threat to men’s honour, and likewise do men
in domestic roles (e.g., childcarers and house husbands) pose a threat to
women’s honour? When men and women feel that their honour is threatened, are
they more likely to prefer romantic partners who are in more traditional roles
(men in breadwinning roles, women in caretaking roles)? In this research project,
we will investigate these questions using comparative designs that include
members of honour (e.g., Pakistani, Indian) vs. non-honour cultures (e.g., white
British).
Selected relevant papers:
Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R., & Weaver, J., & Wasti, A. (2009).
The links between precarious manhood and physical aggression. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 623-634.
Cross, S., Uskul, A. K., Gercek-Swing, B., Sunbay, Z., Ataca, B., & Karakitapoglu
Z. (2014). Cultural prototypes and dimensions of honor. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 232-249.
Dietrich, D. M., & Schuett, J. M. (2013). Culture of honor and attitudes toward
intimate partner violence in Latinos. Sage open, 3(2), 2158244013489685.
Uskul, A. K., Cross, S.,Gercek-Swing, B., Sunbay, Z., & Ataca, B. (2012). Honor
bound: The cultural construction of honor in Turkey and the Northern
US. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 1131-1151.
Vandello, J. A., Cohen, D., Grandon, R., & Franiuk, R. (2009). Stand by your
man: Indirect prescriptions for honorable violence and feminine loyalty in
Canada, Chile, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 40, 81-104.
STUDY 2: Honor, Morality, Reputation (4)
Given that I will focus on the topic of honour and norm violations, and
considering the discussion about whether honour serves as a moralization
function (Shafa's paper about honour and evaluations of insults in terms of
morality vs. competence, Roger's paper looking at correlations between moral
and honour codes, and your Cultural construction of honour paper that found
moral behaviour as one account of honour, plus the integrity honour items that
include honesty and trustworthiness), one way to look at my main study, or
if not the next ones is to see if high honour individuals would judge
these various norm violators in terms of morality than other trait items (competence,
warmth, etc.) compared to low honour individuals.
For instance just to see if there is such a trend in the
main study, Feminine Mike is indeed rated more negatively in terms of
morality (mean ~ 6.0) than competence (mean ~ 6.6) by male participants who are
high in masculine honour (I will run this analyses properly to see all the
trends, now just telling you by looking at the graph I have in my hand).
I like this first study definitely! I think it is interesting
and there are nice findings on how honour is related to judgments of people who
have gender nonconforming expressions (and hopefully there will be more when
data from Turkey comes). My thoughts are evolving in the process, and I'm
trying to ask better/proper questions to test what I intend to test, and also
thinking of how the literature could be advanced more theoretically. It is a
bit worrying that JPSP reveiwer comments to the "Battle of the Sexes"
paper had strong points saying that paper does not expand what we already know
about honour and gender.
I wrote down my vague ideas for the next study. I hope daldan
dala atlamiyorum ve cok confusing yazmadim. I would really like to discuss with
you about your thoughts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my next study to be conducted over the summer (with
quick online data collection from MTurk or Research Prolific), it might be
better to test something more directly. I can find/create simpler scenarios in
which a male/female character is conducting
a) a behavior that violates the gender norms (e.g., a
gender-inappropriate behavior for men like who cannot carry a heavy box, or who
doesn't work, etc., for a female character who is not into
marriage/childbearing or who is after sexual adventures, etc.) ,
b) a behavior that violates social conventions (e.g., drinking coffee
with a spoon, eating food like a dog),
c) a behavior that violates status/hierarchy norms (e.g., some high
status person buying clothes from pazar, or owning a crappy phone, or riding a
bike to work instead of driving a mercedes, etc.),
d) a behavior that violates moral norms (e.g., something unfair, .. this
can come from moral foundation domains. OR maybe a violation that puts honesty
vs. loyalty in conflict OR something that does cause
harm). --> This moral norm violations is interesting and
multiple studies can be done which may explore moral dilemmas that
put certain honour values into conflict...fairness vs. loyalty (arkadasini
yanlis yaptigini bile bile kayirmak ya da yanlis oldugu icin kayirmamak:
loyalty vs. fairness) and honesty vs. loyalty (aldattigini itiraf etmek
yoksa partnerinin/ailenin haysiyetini mi korumak: honesty vs. harm).
This study could look at which moral code (loyalty, fairness,
honesty) leads to moral judgments in high honour individuals vs. low honour
individuals (A mediation model).
I would then ask judgments questions like I did in the
current studies, but perhaps much shorter:
1) how competent do you perceive this character (few items from
Competence scale)?
2) how moral do you perceive the character? (one item)
3) how moral do you perceive this character's behaviors? (one item)
4) how reputable, socially-worthy, popular is this character?(tackles
the social-status/respect domain of honour)
5) how much esteem,confidence does this person has? How proud is this
person? (tackles the self-respect domain of honour)
6) Maybe, I could ask the emotional reaction items as I did (How does
this character make you feel...? - comfortable, disgusted, tense, etc.)
7) Maybe some items about social exclusion
And then questions about how this character effects the honour of other
persons.
How much do you believe that this behavior honours/dishonours a) parents, b) partner/gf/bf, c) sibling, d) friend
?
Based on what we already know, the hypotheses that come to my mind now
would be:
1) All violators would be judged more negatively by high honour
individuals than low honour individuals.
2) All violators would be judged more negatively in terms of morality
than competence (an exploratory one perhaps to see if this differs among
different norm violations) by high honour individuals than low honour ones -
Meaning that mean of perceived morality would be lower than mean of perceived
competence
In all studies, I'd then look at culture as a mediator, and then
collapsing turkish and english participants, I could also investigate
individual endorsement of honour.
Wouldn't such a study be novel in terms of directly testing
how in honour cultures, people condemn/judge norm violators negatively and
moralize the non-normative acts than in dignity cultures (assuming that this
would be the case)?
Discussion points can be
- Honour working as a reputation-maintenance and moralization function
can explain cultural tightness (why there is less tolerance of those who
deviate from the norms in some cultures), moralization can make attitudes more
resistant to change, and dishonourable behavior leads to social exclusion so
this is something to avoid, and therefore people act more in line with the
norms.
Hi Ayse,
After our talk, I
wanted to write down the overarching research questions and hypotheses for
these next studies.
- Do norm violators seen as less honourable people?
----> According to high honour endorsers, maybe gender and moral norm
violators will be judged as less honourable people than other norm violations
such as social conventions
AU:
I remember discussing that norm violators may be seen as more morally weak by
high honour endorsers than lone honour endorsers, I am not sure they would
necessarily be seen as less honourable. They may or may not and you can
definitely study this. But how you frame the prediction should depend on what
you have in mind. Do you have in mind that high endorsers see morality in
everything that is deviant form the norm? I remember discussing it in those
terms, but I may be wrong. Also what exactly do you mean by social
conventions?
- Do they dishonour others as well? (- parent, -
partner, - friend, - stranger) ---> According to high honour
endorsers, maybe gender norm and moral norm violators will dishonour others
more so than other kinds of norm violators such as social conventions
AU:
so the question is whether they spill over? This may not be that novel of a
question, we do know that honour cultures see these things as spilling over to
others. But you could potentially have a study that looks at this, but it may
not be as exciting.
- Are they judged as having less moral characters
and actions by high honour endorsers compared low honour endorsers?
AU:
yes, I guess this is what I said above, right?
- Are they judged especially in terms of how
moral/immoral they are than how competent/incompetent they are by high honour
endorsers compared to low honour endorsers?
AU: yes.
Answers to these
questions would lead us understand in which situations honour becomes a bigger
concerns in the everyday context (in moral contexts or other contexts as
well?), which situations especially leads to a loss of honour, and how does
this loss of honour spills over to others' honour.
Do they make sense?
AU:
yes it does make sense. Now would-be a good time to think of a crude outline of
a series of studies where you would examine these questions. Which studies
would you run, in which order?
STUDY 2: Honour, Morality, Reputation (3)
Chudek, M., & Henrich, J. (2011). Culture–gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(5), 218-226.
Box 2. Mechanisms for sustaining cooperation and other norms
Generally, formal evolutionary models act as mental prostheses that help build intuitions about how complex evolutionary dynamics operate. For cooperation, theoretical models strive to explain the persistence of individually costly cooperation by describing strategies which, when sufficiently common, allow cooperators to outcompete non- cooperators while ‘paying’ for themselves [17,31,34,35]. These mechanisms share two important features. First, cooperative strategies cannot spread when rare, but are stable once common. The initial emergence of costly norms requires other mechanisms, such as stochastic fluctuations, non-random group fragmentations or other shocks. Cultural learning psychology and norm-psychology help fill this role: prestige- and success-biases allow influential leaders to seed new behavioral norms in small founder groups, which can then grow large; conformist-learning and norm-psychology ensure that new migrants to those groups conform to these norms (generating phenotypic assortment); cultural group selection spreads the more cooperative norms. Second, these models specify strategies that, once common, stabilize either cooperation or any other arbitrary norm. Because, in a public goods game (e.g. community defense or well-digging), the costs of cooperation create fitness differences among strategies but the benefits do not (i.e. they are shared equally), any mechanism that sustains this form of cooperation can sustain any equivalently costly behavior. Although these mechanisms are all conceptually rather different, they all yield higher fitness for individuals who behave according to arbitrary, individually costly local norms. Here we summarize four types of mechanisms.
Reputation: ‘indirect reciprocity’ proposes that choices in one type of interaction have consequences in future interactions with other individuals in different contexts. In such models, defection in largescale cooperative interactions (or any norm violation) can be sanctioned by others in dyadic interactions with violators [31], for example by not helping them. Norm violators accrue bad reputations, which allow others to exploit them without reputational damage.
Costly punishment: punishment-enforced, large-scale cooperation can be undermined by the proliferation of second order free riders, who cooperate but do not punish non-cooperators. One way to address this is to realize that learners use conformist transmission when payoff differences among alternative strategies become small [35,36]. Although conformist transmission might be too weak to maintain cooperation or punishing non-cooperators, it can (for example) maintain the punishment of non-punishers, which then stabilizes punishment and then cooperation. Alternatively, another way to resolve this is by establishing a ‘punishment pool’ [33], such as a police force, which can become self-sustaining by punishing those who do not contribute resources to it and can then sustain other costly behaviors.
Signaling intentions: the second order free rider problem can also be resolved if cooperators send an honest, costly signal of their intention to punish [37]. Fitness benefits accrue to those who adopt two different community-enforced norms: performing the costly signal and the costly behavior it stabilizes. Individuals effectively make a costly, norm-specified commitment to punish norm violators.
Signaling quality: if the quality of potential social partners is difficult to observe, and high quality individuals can signal their quality by punishing norm violators, then costly norms can be sustained by punishment. Here, having honestly communicated their higher quality to others, signaler-punishers obtain the benefits of preferred matings/alliances [34].
Box 2. Mechanisms for sustaining cooperation and other norms
Generally, formal evolutionary models act as mental prostheses that help build intuitions about how complex evolutionary dynamics operate. For cooperation, theoretical models strive to explain the persistence of individually costly cooperation by describing strategies which, when sufficiently common, allow cooperators to outcompete non- cooperators while ‘paying’ for themselves [17,31,34,35]. These mechanisms share two important features. First, cooperative strategies cannot spread when rare, but are stable once common. The initial emergence of costly norms requires other mechanisms, such as stochastic fluctuations, non-random group fragmentations or other shocks. Cultural learning psychology and norm-psychology help fill this role: prestige- and success-biases allow influential leaders to seed new behavioral norms in small founder groups, which can then grow large; conformist-learning and norm-psychology ensure that new migrants to those groups conform to these norms (generating phenotypic assortment); cultural group selection spreads the more cooperative norms. Second, these models specify strategies that, once common, stabilize either cooperation or any other arbitrary norm. Because, in a public goods game (e.g. community defense or well-digging), the costs of cooperation create fitness differences among strategies but the benefits do not (i.e. they are shared equally), any mechanism that sustains this form of cooperation can sustain any equivalently costly behavior. Although these mechanisms are all conceptually rather different, they all yield higher fitness for individuals who behave according to arbitrary, individually costly local norms. Here we summarize four types of mechanisms.
Reputation: ‘indirect reciprocity’ proposes that choices in one type of interaction have consequences in future interactions with other individuals in different contexts. In such models, defection in largescale cooperative interactions (or any norm violation) can be sanctioned by others in dyadic interactions with violators [31], for example by not helping them. Norm violators accrue bad reputations, which allow others to exploit them without reputational damage.
Costly punishment: punishment-enforced, large-scale cooperation can be undermined by the proliferation of second order free riders, who cooperate but do not punish non-cooperators. One way to address this is to realize that learners use conformist transmission when payoff differences among alternative strategies become small [35,36]. Although conformist transmission might be too weak to maintain cooperation or punishing non-cooperators, it can (for example) maintain the punishment of non-punishers, which then stabilizes punishment and then cooperation. Alternatively, another way to resolve this is by establishing a ‘punishment pool’ [33], such as a police force, which can become self-sustaining by punishing those who do not contribute resources to it and can then sustain other costly behaviors.
Signaling intentions: the second order free rider problem can also be resolved if cooperators send an honest, costly signal of their intention to punish [37]. Fitness benefits accrue to those who adopt two different community-enforced norms: performing the costly signal and the costly behavior it stabilizes. Individuals effectively make a costly, norm-specified commitment to punish norm violators.
Signaling quality: if the quality of potential social partners is difficult to observe, and high quality individuals can signal their quality by punishing norm violators, then costly norms can be sustained by punishment. Here, having honestly communicated their higher quality to others, signaler-punishers obtain the benefits of preferred matings/alliances [34].
STUDY 2: Honour, Morality, Reputation (2)
Elster, J. (1990). Norms of revenge. Ethics, 862-885.
Honor is an attribute of free, independent men, not of women,
slaves, servants, or other "small men." (The latter can however, as we
shall see, be verym uch concernedw ithh onor.) It is achievedo r maintained
by victorieso ver equals or superiors,w here "victory"c an mean anything
fromg ettinga way witha n insultingl ook to raping a man's wifeo r killing
him. No honor can be gained froms ubduing slaves or servants,a lthough
it may be lost by not doing so.12S everal writerse mphasize thatt he game
of honor in feuding societies is zero sum. 13 One achieves honor by humiliatingo
thers: what is lost by the one is gained by the other.
Honor is an attribute of free, independent men, not of women,
slaves, servants, or other "small men." (The latter can however, as we
shall see, be verym uch concernedw ithh onor.) It is achievedo r maintained
by victorieso ver equals or superiors,w here "victory"c an mean anything
fromg ettinga way witha n insultingl ook to raping a man's wifeo r killing
him. No honor can be gained froms ubduing slaves or servants,a lthough
it may be lost by not doing so.12S everal writerse mphasize thatt he game
of honor in feuding societies is zero sum. 13 One achieves honor by humiliatingo
thers: what is lost by the one is gained by the other.
STUDY 2: Honour, Morality, Reputation (1)
The idea is that honour concerns play a role in which moral values/domains will become more important in judgments of moral characters and actions.
In honour killings for instance it is evident that Loyalty motive is more important than the care/harm or integrity/honesty motive! In this case, CARE and LOYALTY motives conflict.
Frequency of lying in honour cultures for instance serves a face-saving or honour-maintenance function, in that people lie in public in order to cover up the reputation-damaging acts they to in private. In this case, HONESTY and LOYALTY motives conflict.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(3), 392.
BEHAVING MORALLY IS RELATED TO HAVING A GOOD SOCIAL IMAGE/REPUTATION
Why do people purchase proenvironmental “green” products? We argue that buying such products can be construed as altruistic, since green products often cost more and are of lower quality than their conventional counterparts, but green goods benefit the environment for everyone. Because biologists have observed that altruism might function as a “costly signal” associated with status, we examined in 3 experiments how status motives influenced desire for green products. Activating status motives led people to choose green products over more luxurious nongreen products. Supporting the notion that altruism signals one’s willingness and ability to incur costs for others’ benefit, status motives increased desire for green products when shopping in public (but not private) and when green products cost more (but not less) than nongreen products. Findings suggest that status competition can be used to promote proenvironmental behavior.
A good reputation is more valuable than money.
—Publilius Syrus, 100 B.C.
In honour killings for instance it is evident that Loyalty motive is more important than the care/harm or integrity/honesty motive! In this case, CARE and LOYALTY motives conflict.
Frequency of lying in honour cultures for instance serves a face-saving or honour-maintenance function, in that people lie in public in order to cover up the reputation-damaging acts they to in private. In this case, HONESTY and LOYALTY motives conflict.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(3), 392.
BEHAVING MORALLY IS RELATED TO HAVING A GOOD SOCIAL IMAGE/REPUTATION
Why do people purchase proenvironmental “green” products? We argue that buying such products can be construed as altruistic, since green products often cost more and are of lower quality than their conventional counterparts, but green goods benefit the environment for everyone. Because biologists have observed that altruism might function as a “costly signal” associated with status, we examined in 3 experiments how status motives influenced desire for green products. Activating status motives led people to choose green products over more luxurious nongreen products. Supporting the notion that altruism signals one’s willingness and ability to incur costs for others’ benefit, status motives increased desire for green products when shopping in public (but not private) and when green products cost more (but not less) than nongreen products. Findings suggest that status competition can be used to promote proenvironmental behavior.
A good reputation is more valuable than money.
—Publilius Syrus, 100 B.C.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)