Search

To restore their reputation, people from honor cultures (e.g., U.S. South) are more likely than people from dignity cultures (e.g., U.S. North) to retaliate against conflict partners who insult them. If a conflict partner does not insult them, however, they are more polite than dignity culture individuals, so that they don't provoke the person unnecessarily. Previous research has not examined the implicit person perception phase in these interactions. In this research, we focused on spontaneous trait inferences (STIs) that people can make from others' potentially offensive behaviors. In four studies (n = 1126), we tested whether being from a U.S. honor or dignity culture or the endorsement of these values was associated with hostile and nonhostile STIs, and whether honor and dignity influenced the relationship between STIs and behavioral intentions. In Study 1 and 2, honor culture participants made both types of STIs, whereas dignity culture participants only made hostile STIs. Study 3 revealed a positive association between individual honor endorsement and nonhostile STIs. In Study 4, we replicated most of these results and also found a positive association between hostile STIs and confrontation intentions in the honor (but not dignity) group. These results suggest that people from honor (vs. dignity) cultures tend to make rather simultaneous inferences of hostile and nonhostile traits from potentially offensive behaviors and making spontaneous hostile inferences can be more consequential for them. This research highlights the complexity of culture's influence on interpersonal processes and can have implications for diverse social contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Facebook behavior can reflect people's cultural norms and motivations. Despite being a global platform, there is limited cross-cultural research on self-expression on Facebook. Compared to collectivistic cultures (e.g., Turkey), people from individualistic cultures (e.g., European-Americans) are more likely to have self-enhancement motivation about their internal attributes (e.g., accomplishments, preferences), to emphasize their uniqueness, and to display positivity bias. In this study, we examined people's actual Facebook status updates and found that European-Americans were more likely than Turkish users to post updates about their personal achievements and positive attitudes. Moreover, Turkish users were more likely to post negative attitudes than positive attitudes. Furthermore, European-Americans' self-enhancement and uniqueness motivation was positively associated with their likelihood of posting achievement updates, whereas Turkish users' self-enhancement motivation was positively associated with their likelihood of posting relationship updates. This research is the first to examine actual Facebook status updates in relation to cultural differences in motivations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In honour cultures, such as Turkey, reputation management is emphasised, whereas in dignity cultures such as northern US, self‐respect and personal achievements are central. Turkey is also a collectivistic culture, where relationship harmony is as important as reputation management. When Turkish people's reputation is threatened, they may experience an internal conflict between these two motives and display helplessness. The purpose of the present study was to examine how people from Turkey (an honour culture; n = 52) and northern US (a dignity culture; n = 48) would perceive and respond to reputation threats as opposed to self‐respect threats. As predicted, Turkish participants anticipated stronger anger, shame, and helplessness in response to reputation threats than self‐respect threats, whereas differences were smaller or non‐existent in northern US. Moreover, shame was a mediator between appraisal and helplessness for reputation threats in Turkey (shame positively predicted helplessness); anger was a mediator between appraisal and helplessness for self‐respect threats in northern US (anger negatively predicted helplessness). These results are novel in their inclusion of helplessness and appraisal theory of emotions when examining responses to threats in honour and dignity cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Workplace incivility has detrimental effects on targets of such behaviors and can lead to further conflict. This research aims to examine whether cultural differences in people's approach to social respect and status may influence their responses to incivility displayed by superiors and subordinates. Design/methodology/approach: Three studies (n = 1043) examined how people from honor cultures (southern states of the USA; Latin America) and dignity cultures (northern states of the USA) would perceive and respond to uncivil superiors relative to uncivil subordinates. Studies 1 and 2 used scenarios; in Study 3, employed participants recalled their own incivility experiences. Findings: Participants from honor cultures were more likely to perceive the mistreatment negatively if it came from a superior than a subordinate (all studies) and more likely to indicate that they would retaliate against an uncivil superior than an uncivil subordinate (Studies 1 and 3). Moreover, for participants from honor cultures (but not from dignity cultures), anger mediated the relation between the appraisal of incivility and retaliation only when the offender was a superior (all studies). Research limitations/implications: This research relied on scenarios and people's recollections, focusing on a limited range of responses to incivility. Future research should conduct laboratory experiments and examine additional responses. Nevertheless, these findings suggest that being mistreated by a superior or a subordinate has different meanings and consequences for people from diverse cultures, which can have implications for cross-cultural work interactions. Originality/value: To the best of the author's knowledge, this research is the first to compare people's emotional and behavioral responses to uncivil superiors with their responses to uncivil subordinates in honor cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Honor means 'high respect; esteem,' but it has different associations for different cultures. In honor cultures (Turkey), esteem depends on one's own perception of self-worth and on other people's opinions. In those cultures, honor is easily lost and difficult to regain. In dignity cultures (northern America), esteem mainly depends on the individual and cannot be taken away by others. One way to lose honor in Turkey is through behaviors that may be seen as 'potentially improper.' Thus, we expected that posting pictures of such behaviors on Facebook (e.g., at a party; with one's boyfriend/girlfriend) and letting others see them would be less likely in Turkey than in the northern United States. Moreover, we investigated whether honor endorsement was the reason for this difference. We examined participants' posting intentions and actual Facebook behaviors. As expected, Turkish participants were less willing to post and let others (especially their relatives) see their potentially improper pictures compared with northern Americans. Moreover, honor endorsement negatively predicted the willingness to post such pictures only in Turkey, especially for women. This suggests that in honor cultures, the concern for losing honor could be the underlying reason for avoiding social media postings that could be potentially perceived as improper. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we review research in psychology and other related social science fields that has adopted an honor framework to examine intrapersonal, interpersonal, and intergroup processes taking a culture‐comparative or individual differences approach. In the sections below, we will first review research on the role of honor in interpersonal processes focusing primarily on interpersonal aggression including in close relationships, non‐aggressive ways of responding to threats (e.g., forgiveness), and reciprocity. Next, we move onto reviewing research on the role of honor in intrapersonal processes, specifically in the domains of emotional responses to honor‐threatening situations, mental, and physical health. Finally, we review research emerging from social and political psychology and political science that have utilized the honor framework to understand and explain group processes and intergroup relations at different level of analyses (e.g., social groups, nations). Given the limited space, our goal was to emphasize major and emerging areas of research on honor and provide food for thought for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Honor means having a good reputation (e.g., being known as an honest person) and self-respect (e.g., being proud of one's own competence). In honor cultures (e.g., Turkey, Southern U.S.), people are more sensitive to threats to their moral reputation (e.g., being called a liar) than in dignity cultures (e.g., Northern U.S.), and they respond more strongly to these threats to restore their damaged reputation. Taking a goal conflict approach, we propose that among members of honor cultures, restoration of honor in response to a morality threat can become a superordinate goal, and can result in the neglect or derailment of other goals. In two experiments (n = 941), participants from Turkey (a non-Western honor culture), the U.S. South (a Western honor culture), and the U.S. North (a dignity culture) received a morality threat (accusation of dishonesty), a competence threat (accusation of poor writing ability), or neutral feedback. As predicted, participants from honor cultures, but not the dignity culture, were more likely to delay their subsequent goals after receiving a threat to their moral reputation (vs. competence threat or neutral conditions; Study 1). Moreover, Turkish participants were more likely to display goal derailment after receiving a morality threat compared to a competence threat, but there was no difference in responses to the two types of threat among the U.S. Northerners or Southerners (Study 2). This research is the first to examine honor using a goal conflict framework and to conduct laboratory experiments in two honor cultures. • People from honor cultures are sensitive to threats to their moral reputation such as insults. • Protection of honor becomes a superordinate goal in honor cultures after insults. • Members of honor cultures delay and derail from other goals after morality threats. • This effect on goal pursuit is weaker or non-existent in dignity cultures. • Threats less central to honor have weaker effects on goal pursuit in honor cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two studies investigated retaliatory responses to actual honor threats among members of an honor culture (Turkey) and a dignity culture (northern United States). The honor threat in these studies was based on previous research which has shown that honesty is a key element of the conception of honor and that accusations of dishonesty are threatening to one's honor. In both studies, participants wrote an essay describing the role of honesty in their lives and received feedback on their essay accusing them of being dishonest (vs. neutral feedback). Turkish participants retaliated more strongly than did northern U.S. participants against the person who challenged their honesty by assigning him/her to solve more difficult tangrams over easy ones (Study 1) and by choosing sensory tasks of a higher level of intensity to complete (Study 2). Study 2 added a relational honor condition, in which participants wrote about honesty in their parents' lives and examined the role of individual differences in honor values in retaliation. Endorsement of honor values significantly predicted retaliation among Turkish participants in the relational honor attack condition, but not among northern U.S. participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main goal of the current research is to investigate emotional reactions to situations that implicate honour in Turkish and northern American cultural groups. In Studies 1A and 1B, participants rated the degree to which a variety of events fit their prototypes for honour-related situations. Both Turkish and American participants evaluated situations generated by their co-nationals as most central to their prototypes of honour-related situations. Study 2 examined emotional responses to Turkish or US-generated situations that varied in centrality to the prototype. Highly central situations and Turkish-generated situations elicited stronger emotions than less central situations and US-generated situations. Americans reported higher levels of positive emotions in response to honour-enhancing situations than did Turkish participants. These findings demonstrate that the prototypes of honour relevant situations differ for Turkish and northern American people, and that Turkish honour relevant situations are more emotion-laden than are northern American honour relevant situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]