Regulating honor in the face of insults☆
Introduction
Previous research has focused on the influence of honor endorsement and the way people respond to insults. After being insulted, members of honor cultures tend to become angrier and show more aggression than members of low-honor cultures (Cohen et al., 1996, Van Osch et al., 2013). Many studies report that those who adhere strongly to honor are not only more antagonistic after an insult, but they are also friendlier or more cooperative when there is no insult (Beersma et al., 2003, Cohen et al., 1996, Cohen et al., 1999, Harinck et al., 2013). This latter observation, however, has attracted less attention. Moreover, although the effect of insults on cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses has been documented extensively, yet it is still unknown which underlying psychological mechanisms might explain these effects.
The goal of the current research is to provide a new perspective on honor-related conflict escalation after an insult by connecting it to Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1997). This theory distinguishes between promotion-focused motivational inclinations, aimed at achieving gains, and prevention-focused motivational inclinations, aimed at avoiding losses. More specifically, we aim to demonstrate that both cooperative and aggressive responses in an escalatory setting are driven by prevention focus and the inclination to prevent a loss of honor. In this paper we present both correlational and experimental research to assess this mechanism. Moreover, by experimentally inducing salience of honor concerns in participants with a similar cultural background, we isolate the effect of honor from other cultural differences. This allows us to examine the processes of maintaining and protecting honor in the face of insults and specify the role of the underlying psychological mechanisms involved.
Honor has been defined as ‘the value of a person in his own eyes, but also in the eyes of his society’ (Pitt-Rivers, 1965, p. 21). In honor cultures, people's worth is defined in terms of their claim to honor but also the extent to which they are considered honorable by society (Gilmore, 1987, Peristiany, 1965). Hence, honor has both an internal and an external component. Honor cannot be claimed unless it is acknowledged by others – likewise it can be taken away if it is challenged by others (Miller, 1993). Therefore, members of honor cultures strive for positive social evaluations and a good reputation; positive social evaluations are an important source of their sense of worthiness. Moreover, they will go to great lengths to protect and maintain honor because loss of honor is associated with social rejection and degradation.
Previous research has shown that honor endorsement has important implications for the way people engage in social interactions, particularly when facing (potential) conflicts. For example, high-honor participants become more upset, are physiologically more primed for aggression, and respond more competitively after being offended compared to low-honor participants (Beersma et al., 2003, Cohen et al., 1996, IJzerman et al., 2007, Van Osch et al., 2013). This line of work has clearly demonstrated that honor is associated with shame, anger, and aggression, especially in response to insults.
At the same time, there is evidence that prior to or in the absence of an insult the pattern is reversed. For example, in their study Cohen and colleagues observed that, prior to being insulted, honor culture members were more polite and friendly than low-honor culture members (Cohen et al., 1996). Whereas this line of research has traditionally focused on the finding that honor culture participants respond more aggressively after being insulted, the differences obtained can also be explained by the obliging behavior of the honor culture participants who were not insulted. Moreover, Beersma et al. (2003) highlight that relative cooperativeness is observed among those high in honor. In their study, honor concerns were negatively correlated with competitive conflict intentions. Additionally, recent research by Harinck and colleagues corroborates the idea that in the absence of an insult, honor-culture members handle a conflict situation more constructively than low-honor culture members (Harinck et al., 2013).
Thus, although most researchers have emphasized that honor endorsement can elicit aggression-related outcomes, we also focus on the other side of the same coin, showing that the absence of insults is associated with more obliging and constructive behavior among honor-culture members (Harinck et al., 2013). We argue that these seemingly incompatible responses actually result from the same underlying psychological mechanism, relating to the way in which people strive to achieve or maintain their honor-related goals. Our aim is to identify these motivational inclinations that drive obliging as well as aggressive behavior and to reveal why those concerned with honor respond so differently prior to and after an insult.
As stated before, preventing loss of honor is an important concern among those who endorse honor values (Anderson, 1994, Leung and Cohen, 2011, Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2008). Because honor is transient and relies on social affirmation, people concerned with their honor and reputation may experience that they have more to lose in tense social interactions than people who are less concerned with their honor. Operating obligingly and cautiously in interactions can help to remain in other people's grace as a way to ensure a positive evaluation. Additionally it has been suggested that norms of friendliness in honor cultures effectively prevent unintended threat to other people's esteem— a threat which could result in spirals of aggressive responses (Cohen and Vandello, 2004, Cohen et al., 1999).
Conversely, impugning someone's honor is a sure way to escalate a tense situation. Doing so always involves the risk of retaliatory action, as a threat to honor requires restoration, even if this is by means of violence (Anderson, 1994, Cross et al., 2013, Nisbett and Cohen, 1996). Indeed, it has been demonstrated that high-honor participants tend to react vigorously to insults as a mean to restore their threatened social image after an insult (Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2008). These findings thus seem to suggest that honor-related aggression may be a self-defensive strategy, mainly driven by the motivation to prevent the undesired outcome of loss of honor (Cohen and Nisbett, 1994, Hayes and Lee, 2005).
If honor indeed activates concerns for the maintenance of reputation, this should be apparent in the motivational inclinations that drive people's behavior. According to Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1997), the strategies that people employ to reach their goal strongly depend on the specific characteristics of that goal. Higgins distinguishes between end states that can be characterized as ideal goals (desired outcomes associated with nurturance, growth, and gains) and ought goals (undesired outcomes associated with safety, responsibility, and losses). Each type of goal elicits a different focus, which is characterized by different strategies, resulting in different emotions when the desired goal is or is not achieved. People who strive for ideal goals adopt a promotion focus. They eagerly pursue gains and avoid non-gains, are willing to take risks to achieve their desired outcome and they experience elation when they reach their goal and dejection when they do not. In contrast, people striving for ought goals adopt a prevention focus as they pursue non-losses and avoid losses, and are cautious and vigilant to prevent the undesired outcome. They experience quiescence when they reach their desired goal and agitation when they do not. Thus, Regulatory Focus Theory informs us on the motivational inclinations that people employ to pursue specific end states that are construed as ideal vs. ought goals (Higgins, 1996, Higgins, 1997). It also specifies between cognitive as well as emotional indicators of both foci.
We argue that goal achievement through prevention focus – vigilance and prevention of potential loss – is relatively more important for those concerned with honor than for those less concerned with honor. Since honor can be given or taken away by others, people have little control over it. Considering the particular concerns associated with the maintenance of honor in general, our central hypothesis is that those who endorse honor to a greater extent will also be more prevention focused because for them, honor is a necessary commodity that is hard to gain but easy to lose (Anderson, 1994, Cross et al., 2014, Gilmore, 1987, Leung and Cohen, 2011, Vandello and Cohen, 2004).
The idea that concerns for honor prompt a prevention focus is in line previous work on cultural differences in approach-avoidance motivation and regulatory focus. This research has shown that an interdependent self-construal is associated with relatively higher levels of avoidance and prevention focus, compared to an independent self-construal (Aaker and Lee, 2001, Elliot et al., 2001, Lee et al., 2000). Much of this work has considered an interdependent self-construal associated with concerns for face rather than honor. However, the ideals of honor and face do share the commonality that they rely on social approval and are therefore interdependent. On the other hand, dignity is associated with an independent self-construal (Cross et al., 2014, Leung and Cohen, 2011, Vandello and Cohen, 2004).
Situations are conceivable where the behavior of those with a high concern for honor is not driven by prevention focus. For example, when the concern for one's honor is less salient (i.e. in anonymous situations) or when the probability of losing honor is minimal, behavior may also be driven by promotion focus. Additionally, some honor-related behaviors may be specifically motivated by promotion focus, such as expressing one's pride, helping others or being loyal to one's values (Cross et al., 2014). Therefore, we do not state that higher levels of prevention focus always occur at the cost of promotion focus. Additionally, not all honor-related behavior is motivated by prevention focus. However we expect that, especially in potentially offensive social interactions, behavior is more likely to be motivated by a preoccupation with the prevention of honor loss.
We argue that when honor instigates prevention focus, honor endorsement should elicit behavior aiming to prevent conflict escalation in the initial stages of a conflict. Demonstrating obliging or cooperative behavior is a safe way to avoid an overt confrontation (Shalvi et al., 2013, Ten Velden et al., 2009) because it shows good will and is more likely to be reciprocated with cooperation compared to competitive or dominating behavior. To support this idea, preliminary findings in the field of negotiation do indicate that promotion-focused negotiators tend to engage in more competitive conflict management strategies and make higher opening demands (Galinsky, Leonardelli, Okhuysen, & Mussweiler, 2005) than prevention-focused negotiators. On the other hand, prevention-focused negotiators experience more anxiety and are more likely concede in order to avoid getting into a negotiation, particularly when they expect a cooperative counterpart (Shalvi et al., 2013, Ten Velden et al., 2009).
However, once the tension reaches a point where threat becomes imminent and explicit, people with a (strong) prevention focus would be inclined to do whatever it takes to limit the negative consequences, even by lashing out (see also Keller et al., 2008, Sassenberg and Hansen, 2007, Zaal et al., 2011). Such is the case because prevention goals are more likely to be considered a necessity than promotion goals (Zaal et al., 2011). Thus, this focus elicits strong negative feelings when prevention goals are thwarted, and can even result in risky or destructive behavior (Sassenberg and Hansen, 2007, Scholer et al., 2010). If honor indeed activates prevention focus, then salience of honor concerns should instigate agitation or aggression in response to overt threats to one's honor such as insults and social rejections.
To our knowledge, this link between honor and prevention focus has not been addressed yet, so that empirical evidence supporting our reasoning beyond the association between interdependent self-construal and prevention focus is scarce (see also Hamamura et al., 2009, Lee et al., 2000). Nevertheless, findings linking prevention focus to conflict management (Galinsky et al., 2005, Shalvi et al., 2013, Ten Velden et al., 2009) and responses to social rejection (Keller et al., 2008, Sassenberg and Hansen, 2007) are in line with the observed patterns of honor-related behavior prior to, and after conflict escalation following insults (Beersma et al., 2003, Cohen et al., 1996, Cross et al., 2013, Harinck et al., 2013, Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2008, Van Osch et al., 2013).
Research has further shown that honor can refer to different personal and relational domains, such as family honor, personal integrity, masculine, and feminine honor (Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002a, Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002b). In the current research, we focus on the domain of family honor for several reasons. First, whereas other honor domains pertain to very specific norms such as gender roles, previous research has demonstrated that family honor is the most central part of honor (Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2012, Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002a) as it reflects a basic concern for protecting and maintaining one's (family) honor and it is relevant to a broad range of social interactions. Additionally, loss of honor is most detrimental because it also violates the honor of the entire family (Cihangir, 2013). In this sense, family honor concerns reflect a global and overarching concern for honor protection and maintenance. Additionally, recent research has demonstrated that cultural differences in aggressive responses to insults are driven by family honor concerns (Van Osch et al., 2013) rather than by the other domains. Therefore, in the current studies, we focused on this central domain of honor specifically.
Moreover, it is important to take into consideration that endorsement of honor is not necessarily tied to cultural ethnicity, though ethnicity can be an important factor in distinguishing high-honor cultures from low-honor cultures. Honor concerns are prevalent in all cultures, and although there are cultural differences in the way they are construed and in their relative importance (Cross et al., 2014, Leung and Cohen, 2011, Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002a), research has revealed that intra-cultural differences in honor endorsement can also be a source of insult-elicited aggression (Beersma et al., 2003, IJzerman et al., 2007, Somech and Elizur, 2009). In the current research, we aim to examine the role of adherence to honor concerns, and their role in conflict escalation following insults.
In three studies, we examined the predicted link between honor concerns and prevention focus, and how this influences emotions and behavior in different stages of conflict escalation. In a first exploratory study, we compared individuals from a high-honor culture to individuals from a low-honor culture to relate cultural differences in honor endorsement to regulatory focus preferences. In the second study, we examined how honor affects initial approaches to possibly escalatory situations. We connected the salience of honor to emotions and conflict intentions to examine responses in a setting that had the potential to escalate (but had not escalated yet). In the third study, we immersed participants in an escalatory situation to assess emotions and behavioral indicators of aggression (administration of white noise). By separating responses to pre-offensive situations from those to explicitly offensive interactions, we aim to shed light on the process of conflict development and reveal whether the same underlying mechanisms could account for different responses in each phase. The novelty of this approach is that it explicates the process of maintaining honor in different phases of a possibly insulting situation.
Section snippets
Study 1
In the first study we assessed honor-related differences in regulatory focus among a community sample of honor culture and low-honor-culture members. We hypothesized that participants from an honor culture should endorse honor concerns to a greater extent than low-honor-culture participants. We also expected honor-culture members to subscribe to prevention focus goals more than low-honor culture members and that honor concerns would relate to prevention focus, but we did not expect any
Study 2
In Study 2, we set out to investigate the connection between honor concerns, emotional responses, and behavioral inclinations in a situation that has the potential to escalate but has not escalated yet. We presented participants with a situation in which potential conflict escalation was implicit or a situation in which conflict escalation was explicit, depending on the offensiveness of the opponent's response. We did so in order to investigate whether the concern for preventing loss of honor
Study 3
Results of Study 2 demonstrated that, when honor concerns are salient, the initial approach to a possibly escalatory situation is more likely de-escalatory than when honor is not salient. In Study 3 we set out to examine the dynamics of conflict escalation and to identify whether higher levels of aggression are driven by the same mechanism that drives de-escalatory behavior in the earlier stages of conflict. Therefore, in our third study we exposed participants to a more immersive situation in
General discussion
In three studies we examined the relation between honor, regulatory focus, and responses to different types of feedback, distinguishing insulting feedback from general negative or neutral feedback. Across three studies we found support for the notion that, particularly in a setting that poses a possible threat to one's social image, honor endorsement is associated with prevention focus. We showed that those high in honor reported higher overall levels of prevention focus, reported higher levels
Conclusion
In conclusion, our findings highlight that those high in honor initially adopt a more de-escalatory approach to a possible confrontation, but show more aggression once they were actually offended. Additionally, both types of responses are (at least partially) driven by higher levels of prevention focus, or the motivation to prevent an undesirable end-state; the loss of honor.
References (58)
- et al.
Culture, gender, organizational role, and styles of conflict resolution: A meta-analysis
International Journal of Intercultural Relations
(2005) - et al.
Prevention-focused self-regulation and aggressiveness
Journal of Research in Personality
(2008) - et al.
The attraction of social power: The influence of construing power as opportunity versus responsibility
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2012) - et al.
Pay to walk away: Prevention buyers prefer to avoid negotiation
Journal of Economic Psychology
(2013) - et al.
Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note
Journal of Research in Personality
(2008) - et al.
I seek pleasures and we avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion
Journal of Consumer Research
(2001) The code of the streets
Atlantic Monthly
(1994)- et al.
Bound in honor: How honor values and insults affect the experience and management of conflicts
The International Journal of Conflict Management
(2003) - et al.
Defending honour, keeping face: Interpersonal affordances of anger and shame in Turkey and Japan
Cognition and Emotion
(2014) Culture and negotiation
International Journal of Psychology
(2000)
Clueless about culture and indirect confrontation of conflict
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research
Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Gender specific honor codes and cultural change
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
Self-protection and the culture of honor: Explaining southern violence
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An ‘experimental ethnography’
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
The paradox of politeness
‘When you call me that, smile!’ How norms for politeness, interaction styles, and aggression work together in Southern culture
Social Psychology Quarterly
Confrontation versus withdrawal: Cultural differences in responses to threats to honor
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
Cultural prototypes and dimensions of honor
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace
Journal of Organizational Behavior
A cross-cultural analysis of avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals
Psychological Science
Revenge is seductive, if not sweet: Why friends matter for prevention efforts
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
Regulatory focus at the bargaining table: Promoting distributive and integrative success
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Approach—Avoidance motivation and information processing: A cross-cultural analysis
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
The good news about honor culture: The preference for cooperative conflict management in the absence of insults
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research
The southern culture of honor and violent attitudes
Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South Sociological Association
The ‘self digest’: Self-knowledge serving self-regulatory functions
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Beyond pleasure and pain
American Psychologist
Cited by (0)
- ☆
Grant number: NWO 432-08-016.