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?
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder