Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110259

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

It's a man's job? An investigation of shifting (masculine) honor expectations T

for men and women
Steven T. Chalmana, Conor J. O'Deab, , John Renfroea, Donald A. Sauciera
⁎

a
Kansas State University, United States of America
b
Skidmore College, United States of America

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Research on masculine honor beliefs (MHB) has shown that MHB are associated with more positive perceptions
Masculine honor beliefs of men who respond aggressively to threats and insults, but more negative perceptions of men who ignore threats
Shifting standards and insults. Problematically, all previous theoretical research has assumed these expectations do not apply to
Gender women and, as such, no previous research has examined perceptions of women who confront an insulting or
Stereotypes
threatening individual. Across three studies (total N = 1024) we tested our Shifting Honor Expectations (SHE)
Gender expectations
Aggression
hypothesis that women would be held to different expectations than men in response to insults and threats.
Insults Potentially surprising given the lack of extant literature on the topic, across three studies our results showed that,
similarly to men, as a function of participants' MHB, women are perceived more positively when they respond
aggressively to threats and insults. However, unlike men, women were generally not perceived more negatively
when they chose not to aggress against an insulting stranger. We contend that better understanding the rewards
and expectations associated with men and women engaging in aggressive responses to threats and insults (and
how these expectations differ), can help explain extreme forms of violence in society and these implications are
discussed.

1. Introduction
Cultures of Honor are found in many regions worldwide, with dif-
fering regions often evolving unique societal norms (Figueredo et al.,
2004; Fischer et al., 1999; Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002a; Rodriguez
Mosquera et al., 2002b). However, what is common throughout these
Cultures of Honor are rigid codes of conduct that prevent societal
members giving offense to one another and allow them to earn hon-
orable and positive reputations among their community. While many of
these expectations are similar across cultures (e.g., the Mediterranean,
Spain, Machismo cultures), we focus on the specific expectations from
the United States Southern culture of honor to better understand how
the expectations for men differ from those of women in response to
threats and insults.
Historically, Southern terrains provided better opportunity to raise
livestock (e.g., sheep) while the Northern states became rooted in crop
production (Cohen & Nisbett, 1994). With law enforcement in the early
South being weak, herdsmen developed tough reputations by re-
sponding aggressively to threats to their livestock (Cohen & Nisbett,
1994). These reputations warded off threats against themselves, their
families, their property, and their significant others (Bosson & Vandello,
2011; Netchaeva et al., 2015; Saucier et al., 2016). However, while the
Southern United States has shown greater levels of instrumental (or
purposeful) violence (e.g., in the defense of someone or something)
compared to Northern states, but not greater levels of violence overall
(e.g., O'Dea et al., 2018). Norms of politeness developed in the Southern
culture of honor oblige individuals to give respect and hospitality to
others and expect the same courtesies in return (see Cohen et al., 1999).
If these expectations are not upheld, cultural norms dictate that men
respond aggressively (Figueredo et al., 2004; Fischer et al., 1999; O'Dea
et al., 2017; O'Dea et al., 2018; Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002a;
Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002b). Men not adhering to these cultural
expectations risk repeated victimization (Vandello & Bosson, 2013).
1.1. The importance of reputation
The Southern culture of honor embraced this don't mess with me
attitude. Compared to women's reputations, previous research describes
the reputations of men as being precarious (Bosson et al., 2009; Bosson
& Vandello, 2011; Netchaeva et al., 2015; Saucier et al., 2016; Vandello
et al., 2008), and enhanced or diminished by how others perceive their
actions (Barnes et al., 2012; Harinck et al., 2013). Precarious manhood

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: odeac@union.edu (C.J. O'Dea).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110259
Received 26 April 2020; Received in revised form 10 July 2020; Accepted 11 July 2020
Available online 28 July 2020
0191-8869/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.T. Chalman, et al.
emphasizes three principles: 1. Manhood is a status that must be
earned, unlike womanhood which is achieved through time. 2. Man-
hood can be gained but also lost. 3. Manhood is dependent on the
perceptions of others and must be continuously proven through public
behavior (Vandello & Bosson, 2013). As a man's reputation grows in
strength, it not only protects against physical attacks to an individual's
self and property (Baaz & Stern, 2009), but protects against lesser
threats such as insults and slights to a person's character (Saucier, Till,
et al., 2015). These expectations are socialized into boys and young
men at a young age (e.g. standing up to/protecting siblings from bullies;
Cohen & Nisbett, 1994; Nisbett, 1993).
1.2. Threats to masculine honor
Contemporary threats to masculine honor include intended harm or
insult toward anything entrusted to a man's protection: his family,
significant other, property, or reputation (Cohen & Nisbett, 1994, 1997;
Saucier, Till, et al., 2015). Threats may be extreme forms of violence
(e.g., assault, murder or rape of a loved one), or attacks on personal
property or one's community (e.g., theft and vandalism). However,
threats may also be less extreme. For example, men may feel threatened
by and resist interaction or association with femininity or effeminate
gay men (e.g., Glick et al., 2007; Salvati et al., 2016). Their manhood
may also be challenged by slurs and insults targeted at an individual or
their family (e.g., Saucier et al., Submitted; Saucier, Till, et al., 2015).
While not causing physical harm, insults and slurs are threatening be-
cause they damage an individual's reputation. Saucier, Till, et al. (2015)
showed that slurs directed toward a man's masculinity provoked the
most physical retaliation. Dealing with a threat in an immediate, re-
solute manner serves as a sword that, coupled with cultural acceptance
of violence, serves to bolster an individual's tough reputation (Cohen
et al., 1996; Saucier et al., 2016). This tough reputation serves as a
shield to ward off future threat.
1.3. The role of women in cultures of honor
Unfortunately, the literature examining MHB has focused largely on
men (see Martens & Saucier, In preparation). In these cultures, men are
generally viewed as protectors and are, thus, expected to respond to
insult and provocation. Although underdeveloped in the literature
(Martens & Saucier, In preparation), cultures of honor have established
important expectations of behavior regarding women. Unlike manhood,
which is often described as earned, feminine honor is described in the
literature as being grown into over time. Feminine honor is based
heavily on familial obligations, dutifulness, and maintaining sexual
purity (Cichangir, 2012; Guerra et al., 2013; Rodriguez Mosquera,
2013; Vandello et al., 2009).
That said, no published research to our knowledge has examined
perceptions of women who confront or respond aggressively to threats
and provocation as a function of masculine honor ideologies. Research
has shown men who respond decisively to threat and insult are per-
ceived more positively by those reporting higher MHB (O'Dea et al.,
2017, 2018), but there is little to no research regarding how MHB relate
to perceptions of women reacting to threat in an equally decisive
manner. This is especially problematic because women do exhibit vio-
lence and understanding how the expectations differ for men's and
women's use of violence is important. Generally, previous research has
shown men and women are similarly verbally aggressive, but men are
more physically aggressive (Bjorkqvist, 2018). This could be due to men
reporting higher levels of provocation (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996).
However, Bettencourt and Miller (1996) showed meta-analytically that,
while men typically report higher levels of aggression generally, the
gender effect reduced under circumstances of provocation (despite men
reporting significantly greater provocation in these circumstances than
women). Additionally, women tend to report similar levels of intimate
partner violent perpetration as men (albeit, typically not to the same
2
Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110259
extremes), and much of this violence is retaliatory for previous violence
or abuse by men (see Hamberger & Guse, 2002; Swan & Snow, 2002). It
seems an important oversight that women have been largely ignored
within existing honor research, especially in light of the more marginal
sex differences in aggression under conditions of provocations.
Indeed, it is possible that people higher in MHB view women and
men as being equally responsible for protection and response to threat.
However, as previous research has neither discussed nor examined
empirically the honor-bound expectations of women, they may be si-
milar or different to the expectations of men. As such, it is difficult to
tell whether women are held to a different standard for responding
aggressively to threats and insults (the more likely option given focus
and conjecture offered in the extant literature, which we labeled as our
“Shifting Honor Expectations” [SHE] hypothesis) or if they are similarly
rewarded for engaging in violence in response to insults and perceived
negatively when they do not.
1.3.1. Shifting Honor Expectations (SHE) hypothesis
People higher in masculine honor ideologies will have lesser ex-
pectations for women, versus men, to response aggressively to threats
and insults.
2. Current studies overview
Across three studies, we provided the first test of our Shifting Honor
Expectations hypothesis that the expectations for physical aggression
would be stronger for men than for women, both by one's significant
other and third-party observers, as a function of one's endorsement of
masculine honor beliefs (MHB). In Study 1 we examined the relation-
ships between participants' MHB and perceptions of their significant
other confronting a threat directed at the participant. Consistent with
our Shifting Honor Expectations hypothesis, we hypothesized women
higher in MHB would perceive their male significant other more posi-
tively for responding aggressively, and more negatively for ignoring an
insult, directed at her. Conversely, we hypothesized men higher in MHB
would perceive their female significant other more negatively if she
responded aggressively to defend him, and more positively if she ig-
nored the insult directed at him. In Study 2, rather than participants
evaluating their own significant other, they evaluated both a husband
and wife in a situation in which either the husband or wife confronted
or ignored an insult directed at their spouse. We hypothesized that, as a
function of MHB, men (but not women) would be perceived more ne-
gatively after being defended by their opposite-sex significant other. In
Study 3 we added a second man to the scenario, a friend of both the
husband and the wife, then examined perceptions of each of these three
individuals while manipulating who responded aggressively to an as-
sault against the women (the male friend, the husband, the wife, or no
one). This study was a conceptual replication of the previous studies, as
well as an exploratory examination of the social nuance of masculine
honor beliefs. Specifically, masculine honor is described in extant lit-
erature as being highly dependent on how bystanders and one's social
community perceives a man (Saucier et al., 2016). As such, the presence
of a male friend may exacerbate or reduce the effects. Similarly, due to
the family and community bonds aspects of masculine honor beliefs
(e.g., Saucier et al., 2016), the male friend may be similarly expected to
respond aggressively to threats and insults to protect his female friend.
3. Study 1
In Study 1, we asked participants to imagine a situation in which
they were insulted and their significant other either confronted or ig-
nored the insulter. We hypothesized greater MHB in women would be
associated with more positive perceptions of their male significant
other defending them and more negative perceptions of their male
significant other ignoring the insulter. Further, we hypothesized men
higher in MHB would not hold their female significant other to these
S.T. Chalman, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110259

same expectations, consistent with our Shifting Honor Expectations Table 1

hypothesis. Specifically, we hypothesized higher MHB in men would be Regression model predicting participants' perceptions of their significant other
associated with less endorsement and less honorable perceptions of as honorable in Study 1.
their female significant responding aggressively to an insult directed at Predictor B se p η2p
the male participant due to expectations that men be the defender ac-
cording to extant literature on MHB. Total model 5.10 0.10 < .001 .42
MHBS 0.45 0.08 < .001 .06
Sex −0.31 0.20 .119 .00
3.1. Methods Condition −2.99 0.20 < .001 .30
MHBS*Sex −0.19 0.15 .221 .00
3.1.1. Participants MHBS*Condition 0.71 0.15 < .001 .04
Sex*Condition 0.53 0.39 .181 .00
This project was preregistered using the Open Science Framework
MHBS*Sex*Condition 0.81 0.31 .009 .01
(https://osf.io/swktr). We planned to collect data from the
CloudResearch software (Litman et al., 2016) until we achieved at least
150 male and 150 female heterosexual participants ensuring at least 50 MHBS*Sex*Condition simple slopes
participants per condition (plus an extra 100 participants for the con-
tinuous variable) in our 2 × 2 × continuous design, consistent with Participant sex Significant other response MHBS B MHBS se MHBS p

recommendations by Wilson VanVoorhis and Morgan (2007) and Male Ignores 0.39 0.19 .038
Simmons et al. (2013). Due to the CloudResearch software being a Aggresses 0.70 0.19 < .001
traditional majority female sample the minimum 150 male sample re- Female Ignores −0.20 0.10 .057
sulted in our final recruitment being 628 participants from the United Aggresses 0.91 0.11 < .001
States. However, 66 participants were removed who reported they were
not heterosexual. This choice removed possible evaluation variances other's actions as honorable and appropriate. Participants then an-
between participants with opposite or same-sex partners leaving 562 swered two items assessing their self-reported likelihood of responded
participants (153 men, 409 women). Of these, 431 were White, 57 were aggressively in defense of their significant other, “If the stranger had
Black, 29 were Hispanic, 24 were Asian, 6 were Native American, 3 bumped into my significant other and called him/her an asshole, I
were Pacific Islanders, and 12 self-reported their race as “other”. would have responded aggressively.” and their perceptions that their
significant other should defend the participant in this situation, “my
3.1.2. Materials significant other should defend me in this situation.” Participants then
3.1.2.1. Vignette. Participants read a randomly assigned vignette in completed demographic information, were debriefed, and thanked for
which they imagined walking down the street with their significant their participation.
other when an antagonist bumps into the participant's shoulder. The
antagonist then insulted the participant. The vignette was manipulated
such that the participant's significant other reacts by either striking or 3.2. Results
ignoring the antagonist. The full vignette is provided below as
presented in the physically aggressive response condition MHBS, participant sex, and significant other response were entered
[manipulations denoted with brackets]. as predictors of the perceptions of participants' significant other's be-
havior as honorable and appropriate in two separate regressions (see
“You are walking with your significant other down the sidewalk of a Tables 1 and 2, Figs. 1 and 2). The three-way interactions predicting
busy street when a stranger bumps into you. The stranger turns to participants' perceptions of their significant other as honorable and
you and mutters, ‘asshole.’ Your significant other reacts by punching appropriate were both significant. Consistent with our hypotheses,
the stranger in the face [ignores the stranger and continues walking higher levels of MHBS in female participants were associated with
down the sidewalk with you.].” significantly greater perceptions of their male significant other as
honorable and appropriate when he responded aggressively, but lower
3.1.2.2. Masculine Honor Beliefs. To measure participants' endorsement appropriate perceptions when he ignored, an insult directed at the
of masculine honor ideologies, we used the Masculine Honor Beliefs participant.
Scale (MHBS; Saucier et al., 2016). This measure is a 35-item scale
(M = 5.66, SD = 1.30, skewness = −0.18, kurtosis = −.27, Table 2
α = 0.95) in which participants responded on 1 (strongly disagree) to Regression model predicting participants' perceptions of their significant other
as appropriate in Study 1.
9 (strongly agree) scales with greater scores indicating greater
endorsement of masculine honor ideologies. An example item is, “You Predictor B se p η2p
would want your son to stand up to bullies.”
Total model 5.16 0.09 < .001 .56
MHBS 0.27 0.07 < .001 .02
3.1.2.3. Perceptions as honorable and appropriate. Participants reported Sex −0.31 0.19 .103 .01
their perceptions of their significant other's behavior in the vignette as Condition −3.98 0.19 < .001 .45
honorable (M = 5.05, SD = 2.64, skewness = −0.08, MHBS*Sex −0.20 0.15 .167 .00
MHBS*Condition 0.71 0.15 < .001 .04
kurtosis = −1.17, α = .95) and appropriate (M = 5.11, SD = 2.92,
Sex*Condition −0.11 0.38 .773 .00
skewness = −0.08, kurtosis = −1.40, α = .97) using the 5-item MHBS*Sex*Condition 0.65 0.29 .026 .01
measures created by O'Dea et al. (2017). Participants responded to both
measures on 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree) scales with higher
scores indicating greater perceptions of the construct being measured. MHBS*Sex*Condition simple slopes

Participant sex Significant other response MHBS B MHBS se MHBS p

3.1.3. Procedure
Participants were recruited via the CloudResearch software (Litman Male Ignores 0.18 0.18 .329
et al., 2016). Participants provided informed consent and completed the Aggresses 0.56 0.18 .002
MHBS. Participants then read a randomly assigned vignette and com- Female Ignores −0.35 0.10 < .001
Aggresses 0.69 0.11 < .001
pleted the measures assessing their perceptions of their significant

3
S.T. Chalman, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110259

9. Table 3
Participants' perceptions that they would aggress to defend their significant
Honorable Perceptions

7. Male/Significant Other Confronts other, that their significant other should aggress to defend them, or that their
Male/Significant Other Walks Away significant other should not aggress to defend them in Study 1.
5. Female/Significant Other Confronts
I would aggress to defend my significant other
Female/Significant Other Walks Away
3.
Predictor B se p η2p

1. Model 3.80 0.11 < .001 .23

-1 SD +1 SD
MHBS 0.73 0.08 < .001 .12
MHBS
Sex −1.56 0.22 < .001 .08
MHBS*Sex −0.47 0.17 .006 .01
Fig. 1. Honorable perceptions of participants' significant others in Study 1.

MHBS*Sex Simple slopes

9.
Sex MHBS B MHBS se MHBS p
Appropriate Perceptions

7. Male/Significant Other Confronts

Male/Significant Other Walks Away Male 0.96 0.15 < .001
5. Female/Significant Other Confronts Female 0.49 0.08 < .001
Female/Significant Other Walks Away
3.
My significant other should aggress to defend me

1.
-1 SD +1 SD
Predictor B se p η2p
MHBS
Model 3.99 0.12 < .001 .20
MHBS 0.66 0.09 < .001 .09
Fig. 2. Appropriate perceptions of participants' significant others in Study 1. Sex 0.74 0.23 .002 .02
MHBS*Sex 0.73 0.18 < .001 .03

Inconsistent with our speculation that male participants would

perceive responding as primarily their responsibility, male participants MHBS*Sex Simple slopes
higher in MHBS perceived their female significant other who responded
Sex MHBS B MHBS se MHBS p
aggressively to an insult directed at the participant as more honorable
and appropriate. That said, these results were not in contradiction to Male 0.30 0.16 .060
the predictions given in our Shifting Honor Expectations hypothesis Female 1.03 0.09 < .001
regarding perceptions of men versus women in cultures of honor.
Specifically, unlike female participants' perceptions of their male sig- My significant other should not aggress to defend me
nificant others, higher levels of MHBS in male participants were asso-
ciated with significantly greater perceptions of their female significant Predictor B se p η2p
other as honorable and unrelated to perceptions of her as appropriate
Model 5.27 0.13 < .001 .13
when she ignored an insult directed at the participant. Higher MHBS MHBS −0.38 0.10 < .001 .03
scores were associated with more positive perceptions of both men and Sex −1.02 0.25 < .001 .03
women who aggressed in response to an insult against their significant MHBS*Sex −0.83 0.20 < .001 .03
other, but only men were perceived more negatively for ignoring the
perpetrator of the insult. MHBS*Sex Simple slopes
We also examined the extent to which participants indicated they
would aggress for their significant other and participants' indications Sex MHBS B MHBS se MHBS p
that their significant other should aggress for them (Table 3). MHBS
Male 0.04 0.17 .806
and participant sex interacted to predict participants' likelihood of ag- Female −0.79 0.10 < .001
gressing such that higher MHBS scores were associated with sig-
nificantly greater likelihood of aggressing to defend their significant
other in both men and women but the effect was significantly stronger of masculine honor beliefs. Interestingly, despite women's roles in ag-
for men. MHBS and participant sex also interacted to predict partici- gressive response to threat being nearly non-existent in previous lit-
pants' perceptions that their significant other should aggress to defend erature, they are rewarded similarly to men for responding aggressively
them such that MHBS was associated with marginally greater en- to threats/insults, but, unlike men, are not held to this expectation
dorsement of a female significant other defending men and significantly supporting our Shifting Honor Expectations hypothesis.
greater endorsement of a male significant other defending women. In-
terestingly, when the item was instead worded, “my significant other
4. Study 2
should not defend me in this situation”, the interaction between MHBS
and sex became even more pronounced. MHBS was unrelated to men's
Study 2 extended the findings of Study 1 by having participants
perceptions that their female significant other should not defend them
evaluate a husband and wife in a situation in which the husband or wife
but MHBS was strongly negatively related to women's perceptions that
either confronted or ignored an insult directed at their spouse.
their male significant other should not defend them.
Replicating Study 1's findings, we hypothesized higher levels of MHB
Taken together, while honor-bound men are generally seen as the
would be associated with more positive perceptions of both men and
protector, women are not perceived negatively for aggressing in re-
women who respond aggressively to a threat directed at their sig-
sponse to insult directed at their significant other, supporting our
nificant other. Further, we hypothesized higher levels of MHB would be
Shifting Honor Expectations hypothesis. That said, only men's reputa-
associated with more negative perceptions of men, but not women, who
tions were diminished as a function of MHBS for not aggressing against
ignore the threat which remains consistent with our Shifting Honor
provocation. These findings provide an interesting reconceptualization
Expectations hypothesis. Extending these findings, we hypothesized, as

4
S.T. Chalman, et al.
a function of MHB, men defended by their female significant other
would be perceived more negatively, with women defended by their
male significant other perceived more positively/neutrally as a function
of MHB. These findings would further support our Shifting Honor
Expectations hypothesis, showing while women are perceived posi-
tively for defending themselves in relation to MHB, many still perceive
it is men's responsibility to respond aggressively.
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Participants
238 participants from the United States recruited via the
CloudResearch software (Litman et al., 2016) completed the study
using Qualtrics online survey software. 38 additional participants ac-
cessed the survey but were removed for not completing the full survey.
Our final sample met the necessary requirements for a power analysis
using GPower with 7 tested predictors (f2 = 0.0625, α = .05,
power = .80). Of these 238 participants (69 men, 167 women, and 2
self-identified as other),1 the majority were White (78.2%), with an
average age of 39.32 (SD = 13.31).
4.1.2. Materials
4.1.2.1. Masculine Honor Beliefs Scale. As in Study 1, participants
completed the MHBS to measure endorsement of masculine honor
ideology (M = 5.44, SD = 1.35, skewness = −0.19, kurtosis
= −0.49, α = .95).
4.1.2.2. Vignette. Participants were presented with a two-part vignette
that described a husband and wife leaving a bar when either the
husband or wife is bumped into by a stranger. The stranger then insults
the person they bumped into. Below is the first part of the vignette with
[brackets indicating manipulation].
“Ethan and his wife, Jessica, went out for drinks on a Friday night.
While they were walking out of the bar at the end of the night, a
man bumped into Ethan [Jessica] as he [she] walked past him. The
man then called Ethan [Jessica] an “asshole.”
To engage participants in the short story, two open response items
were presented, “What do you think would happen next?” and “What do
you think should happen next?”. Participants then received the second
part of the vignette which continued with the untouched and uninsulted
significant other pushing the man to the ground, or the couple ignoring
the man and walking out of the bar. The vignette reads as follows:
“Jessica [Ethan] then pushed the man to the ground while Ethan
[Jessica] stood watching, and then the two walked out of the bar,
leaving the man on the ground in pain.” Or “Not wanting to start
conflict, Jessica [Ethan] walks out of the bar with Ethan [Jessica].”
1
We examined whether participant sex predicted or interacted with any of
our variables predicting participants' perceptions of the husband and wife.
While there was no main effect of sex predicting participants' perceptions of the
husband, there was a significant 3-way interaction between participant sex,
protagonist's sex, and protagonist's response, F(1,220) = 3.99, p = .047,
η2p = 0.02. The only effect of participant sex was in the female protagonist,
walks away condition, t(220) = 2.20, p = .029; female participants (M = 8.04,
SD = 1.22) perceived the husband significantly more honorable and appro-
priate than male participants (M = 6.83, SD = 1.76). There was also a sig-
nificant 2-way interaction between participant sex and protagonist response
predicting participants' perceptions of the wife, F(1, 220) = 7.76, p = .006,
η2p = 0.03. A significant effect of sex emerged only in the protagonist walks
away condition, t(220) = 2.87), p = .004; female participants (M = 8.14,
SD = 1.14) reported significantly higher perceptions of the wife when she
walked away than male participants (M = 7.11, SD = 2.04). These findings
suggest female participants may perceive walking away and ignoring a threat/
insult to be a more acceptable option than male participants.
5
Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110259
4.1.2.3. Honorable/appropriate perceptions. Participants reported the
same honorable and appropriate perceptions used in Study 1
developed by O'Dea et al. (2017). However, similar to O'Dea et al.
(2018), we combined these two measures (which we labeled positive
perceptions) because they showed similar effects in Study 1.
Participants reported perceptions of both the husband (M = 5.79,
SD = 2.44, skewness = −0.31, kurtosis = −1.02, α = .97) and wife
(M = 5.73, SD = 2.57, skewness = −0.32, kurtosis = −1.09,
α = .97).
4.1.3. Procedure
Participants were recruited via the CloudResearch software (Litman
et al., 2016) and completed the study on Qualtrics Survey software.
Participants provided informed consent, demographic information, and
completed the 35-item MHBS. Participants were presented with the first
part of the vignette and asked what would/should happen next. Then
participants read the second manipulation of the vignette and reported
their perceptions of each spouse's actions on a continuous scale as
honorable and appropriate. Finally, participants were debriefed,
thanked, and given a small monetary compensation.
4.2. Results
To test our hypotheses, MHB, protagonist sex (male, female), and
protagonist response (fight, ignore) were entered as predictors of per-
ceptions of the male and female individuals in separate analyses using
JAMOVI. We first examined perceptions of the husband in the vignette
(see Table 4, Fig. 3). The full model explained a large proportion of
variance in positive perceptions of the husband. This interaction be-
tween MHBS, protagonist sex, and protagonist response was significant.
We probed this effect and found a significant positive effect of MHBS on
positive perceptions of the husband when he responded to the insult
against his wife with aggression, and a negative effect of MHBS on
positive perceptions of the husband when he ignored the insult directed
at his wife. Interestingly, MHBS was unrelated to perceptions of the
husband when the protagonist was his wife whether she responded to
or ignored the insult directed at him. Though described as a social
ideology, masculine honor may be more socially nuanced than pre-
viously realized. Specifically, the two conditions in which either the
husband or wife ignored an insult against their spouse, the outcome is
the same; no one confronted the perpetrator. As such, previous research
by O'Dea et al. (2017, 2018) would suggest more negative perceptions
of the husband as a function of MHB because the insult was not ad-
dressed. However, it appears that making the wife the focal point (i.e.,
“Not wanting to start conflict, Jessica walks...” versus the husband-fo-
cused vignette: “Not wanting to start conflict, Ethan walks...”), we may
have reduced participants' expectations that the husband should re-
spond aggressively to the insult.
We then examined perceptions of the wife in our vignette (see
Table 5, Fig. 4). Although the 3-way interaction was insignificant, we
examined the simple slopes of MHBS at each level of the categorical
moderators to examine whether the results generally replicated our
previous findings and hypotheses. Our results showed positive percep-
tions of the wife were positively related to MHBS when her husband
responded aggressively to the insult directed at her and when she re-
sponded to the insult directed at him. However, no relationship was
shown between MHBS and perceptions of the wife when either she, or
her husband, ignored the insulter.
These results generally supported our predictions of differing stan-
dards regarding expectations concerning men's and women's behavior
within cultures of honor. Specifically, consistent with previous research
on MHB (e.g., O'Dea et al., 2017; O'Dea et al., 2018), men are expected
to respond aggressively to threats and insults and are perceived more
negatively as a function of MHBS when they choose not to. However,
extending the findings of Study 1 and supporting our Shifting Honor
Expectations hypothesis, women are not held to these same standards.
S.T. Chalman, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110259

Table 4 9.
Regression model predicting participants' perceptions of the husband as posi-
tive in Study 2. 7.
Predictor B se p η2p
Male/Confronts
5.
Total model 5.82 0.12 < .001 .44 Male/Walks Away
Female/Confronts
MHBS 0.06 0.09 .536 .00
3. Female/Walks Away
Protagonist sex 0.90 0.24 < .001 .06
Protagonist response 2.73 0.24 < .001 .36
MHBS*Protagonist sex −0.43 0.18 .016 .03 1.
-1 SD +1 SD
MHBS*Protagonist response −0.84 0.18 < .001 .08
Protagonist sex*Protagonist response 0.06 0.48 .896 .00
MHBS* Protagonist sex*Protagonist response 1.21 0.36 < .001 .05
Fig. 4. Positive perceptions of the wife in Study 2.

manipulated whether the husband, wife, or their male friend retaliated

MHBS*Protagonist sex*Protagonist response simple slopes
aggressively toward the assaulter, or walked away together. We mea-
Protagonist sex Protagonist response MHBS B MHBS se MHBS p sured the perceptions of each individual as acting honorably and ap-
propriately to examine the relationships of these perceptions with MHB,
Male Ignores −0.44 0.21 .032 similar to the previous studies. Based on results from our previous
Aggresses 1.00 0.18 < .001
studies, we hypothesized higher MHB would be associated with more
Female Ignores −0.28 0.17 .110
Aggresses −0.05 0.16 .766
positive perceptions of the husband when he retaliated in the scenario
and more negative perceptions when no one retaliated. Based on Study
2's findings, we hypothesized MHBS would be generally unrelated to
9. perceptions of the husband when either his wife or friend responded
aggressively thus, addressing the threat. Still, speculation based on
Positive Perceptions

7. previous research suggests the male friend defending the man's wife
Male/Confronts could diminish the husbands's honor, though, to our knowledge no
5. Male/Walks Away research has specifically examined this effect. We also hypothesized
Female/Confronts higher MHB would be associated with more positive perceptions of the
3. Female/Walks Away wife for defending herself, but unrelated to perceptions of her for
walking away, supporting our Shifting Honor Expectations hypothesis.
1.
-1 SD +1 SD
Lastly, we hypothesized higher MHB would be associated with more
MHBS positive perceptions of the friend when he retaliated aggressively,
though unrelated when he did not, showing those higher in MHB would
Fig. 3. Positive perceptions of the husband in Study 2. perceive a male friend more positively for retaliating to a threat against
a woman. However, the family protection value associated with MHB,
suggests the expectation for retaliation on behalf of the woman fall on
Table 5
the husband (Saucier et al., 2016), with greater expectations for the
Regression model predicting participants' perceptions of the wife as positive in
Study 2. husband to retaliate to the threat against his wife than either the wife or
the male friend in the scenario.
Predictor B se p η2p

Total model 5.79 0.12 < .001 .52 5.1. Method

MHBS 0.31 0.09 < .001 .05
Protagonist sex −0.09 0.23 .698 .00
Protagonist response 3.04 0.23 < .001 .42
5.1.1. Participants
MHBS*Protagonist sex −0.13 0.18 .451 .00 We recruited 224 (51 men and 173 women)2 participants from the
MHBS*Protagonist response −1.01 0.18 < .001 .13 United States via the CloudResearch (Litman et al., 2016) software and
Protagonist sex*Protagonist response 2.17 0.47 < .001 .09 completed our study on Qualtrics online survey software. An additional
MHBS* Protagonist sex*Protagonist response 0.15 0.35 .661 .00
23 accessed the study but were removed for not completing the survey.
This sample did not quite achieve our desired power of 0.80
MHBS*Protagonist sex*Protagonist response simple slopes
2
Protagonist sex Protagonist response MHBS B MHBS se MHBS p We examined whether participant sex predicted or interacted with any of
our variables to predict participants' perceptions of the husband, wife, or male
Male Ignores −0.17 0.20 .401 friend in the vignettes. For perceptions of the husband, we found participant sex
Aggresses 0.92 0.18 < .001 significantly interacted with intervenor, F(3, 208) = 3.21, p = .024, η2p = 0.04.
Female Ignores −0.22 0.17 .184 The only significant effect of gender was in the condition when no one in-
Aggresses 0.71 0.16 < .001 tervened in the sexual assault; female participants (M = 5.19, SD = 2.35)
perceived the husband as significantly less honorable and appropriate than
Instead, as a function of MHBS, women and men are both perceived male participants (M = 6.46, SD = 2.09), suggesting female participants ex-
pected the husband to intervene in the sexual assault more than male partici-
more positively for aggression in response to threats/insults. Women,
pants. There was also a significant 2-way interaction between MHBS and par-
though, have the option of walking away and are not perceived more
ticipant sex predicting participants' perceptions of the husband, F(1,
negatively for doing so as a function of MHBS. 208) = 5.65, p = .018, η2p = 0.03; higher levels of MHBS were associated with
significantly lower honorable and appropriate perceptions of the husband by
female participants, B = −0.29, t(208) = −2.49, p = .013; and insignificantly
5. Study 3 more honorable and appropriate perceptions of the husband by male partici-
pants, B = 0.30, t(208) = 1.37, p = .173. Gender did not predict or interact
Study 3 further expanded our previous studies by adding a male with either MHBS or intervenor to predict perceptions of the male friend or
friend and setting in which a woman was sexually assaulted. We wife.

6
S.T. Chalman, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110259

(f2 = 0.0625, α = .05), but was sensitive to an effect size of Table 6

f2 = 0.0662 which we perceived as a reasonable sample size for data Positive perceptions of the husband, wife, and male friend in Study 3.
analysis given our large effects in the previous two studies. The ma- Husband
jority was White (66.1%) and the average age of participants was 37.21
(SD = 12.04). Predictor F(1–3, 216) p η2p

Model 5.05 < .001 .14

5.1.2. Materials MHBS 2.64 .106 .01
5.1.2.1. Masculine Honor Beliefs Scale. As in the previous studies, we Intervenor 1.48 .222 .02
measured endorsement of masculine honor ideology using the MHBS MHBS*Intervenor 10.26 < .001 .13
(M = 5.43, SD = 1.39, skewness = −0.09, kurtosis = −0.27,
α = .95).
MHBS*Intervenor simple slopes

5.1.2.2. Vignette. Participants read a vignette that described a scenario Intervenor MHBS B MHBS se MHBS p
describing a husband, wife, and their male friend leaving a bar, when a
man grabs the wife's butt witnessed by the husband and the male friend. Husband 0.70 0.19 < .001
Wife −0.68 0.22 .002
The beginning of a vignette reads as follows:
Friend −0.09 0.21 .664
“Ethan invited his best friend Ryan out to get drinks with him and No one −0.59 0.19 .002

his wife, Jessica, on a Friday night. While they were walking out of
the bar at the end of the night, a man sitting at the bar grabbed Wife
Jessica's butt as she walked past him. Ethan (the significant other)
Predictor F(1–3, 216) p η2p
and Ryan (Ethan's friend) both saw the man do this.”
Next participants responded to the questions: “what do you think Model 4.50 < .001 .13
MHBS 2.11 .148 .01
should happen next?” and “what do you think will happen next?” fur- Intervenor 2.86 .038 .04
ther engaging participants with the vignette. The participants were then MHBS*Intervenor 7.02 < .001 .09
presented one of four endings to the vignette. The following shows the
husband confronts condition [brackets denote alternate conditions]:
MHBS*Intervenor simple slopes
“Ethan [Ryan, Jessica] then pushed the man to the ground while
Intervenor MHBS B MHBS se MHBS p
Ryan and Jessica [Ethan and Jessica, Ethan and Ryan] stood back.
He [She] then walked out of the bar with Ryan and Jessica [Ethan Husband 0.71 0.17 < .001
and Jessica, Ethan and Ryan], leaving the man on the ground in Wife 0.10 0.19 .599
pain.” Friend 0.06 0.18 .731
No one −0.36 0.16 .027
Or
“Not wanting to start conflict, Ethan, Ryan, and Jessica walked out Male friend
of the bar”.
Predictor F(1–3, 216) p η2p

Model 6.25 < .001 .17

5.1.2.3. Honorable/appropriate perceptions. Similar to Study 2,
MHBS 0.04 .849 .00
participants rated their perceptions of the husband (M = 5.32, Intervenor 2.91 .035 .04
SD = 2.19, skewness = −0.14, kurtosis = −0.80, α = .96), wife MHBS*Intervenor 12.62 < .001 .15
(M = 6.21, SD = 1.89, skewness = −0.44, kurtosis = −0.31,
α = .93), and male friend (M = 5.49, SD = 2.08, MHBS*Intervenor simple slopes
skewness = −0.33, kurtosis = −0.43, α = .95) as acting honorably
and appropriately using the honorable and appropriate perceptions Intervenor MHBS B MHBS se MHBS p
scale developed by O'Dea et al. (2017), again combined into one
Husband 0.60 0.18 .001
composite measure for each protagonist. Wife 0.52 0.20 .008
Friend −0.69 0.20 < .001
5.1.3. Procedure No one −0.50 0.17 .005
Participants participated online using the CloudResearch software
(Litman et al., 2016). Participants provided informed consent, reported
demographic information, and completed the MHBS. Next, participants the husband when he intervened. No effect of MHBS emerged on per-
read the first part of the vignette and responded to the free response ceptions of the husband when his male friend intervened. Again, there
questions. They then read the randomly assigned manipulation of the was a negative effect of MHBS on positive perceptions of the husband
vignette and reported how honorable and appropriate the actions of when no one intervened. Unlike Study 2, there was a negative effect of
each person were. Finally, participants were debriefed, thanked, and MHBS on perceptions of the husband when his wife intervened. The
given a small monetary compensation. inconsistency between Study 2 and the current study could be attrib-
uted to the presence of the male friend – because MHBS is a social
5.2. Results construct, in isolation men may not be perceived more negatively when
their wives respond to threats, however another man being present,
We examined the interaction between MHBS and intervenor (hus- may affect perceptions. Likewise, the severity of sexual assault versus
band, wife, friend, no one) on positive perceptions of the husband, wife, an insult may explain these effect differences.
and friend (see Table 6). We first tested predictions of perceptions of the We then examined perceptions of the wife as a function of MHBS
husband (Fig. 5). Consistent with our predictions, there was a sig- and condition (see Fig. 6). There was a significant MHBS x Intervenor
nificant interaction between intervenor and MHBS. The simple slopes interaction. Examination of the simple effects showed greater levels of
showed a significant positive effect of MHBS on positive perceptions of MHBS were associated with more positive perceptions of the wife when

7
S.T. Chalman, et al.
9.
Positive Perceptions
7.
5.
3.
1.
-1 SD +1 SD
MHBS
Fig. 5. Positive perceptions of the husband in Study 3.
9.
Positive Perceptions
7.
5.
3.
1.
-1 SD +1 SD
MHBS
Fig. 6. Positive perceptions of the wife in Study 3.
her husband responded aggressively to the stranger and more negative
perceptions of the wife when no one responded to the threat. There was
no relationship between MHBS and participants' perceptions of the wife
in either the friend or wife aggressive response conditions. This sup-
ports the findings of Studies 1 and 2 except that, unlike the previous
studies, the woman was not perceived more positively as a function of
MHBS when she aggressed. Still, Fig. 6 shows the wife was perceived
quite positively for aggressing regardless of MHB. Further, more ne-
gative perceptions of the wife when no one responds do not support our
Shifting Honor Expectations hypothesis. That said, she was tasked with
defending her husband in the first two studies and herself here. The
expectations for self-defense could be higher for women as a function of
MHB, but for both self and others for men (again supporting our SHE
hypothesis). Additionally, Saucier, Strain, et al. (2015) showed that, as
a function of MHB, women are perceived more negatively after being
sexually assaulted (with the caveat that the degree of assault in our
study is not the same in Saucier, Strain, et al.'s (2015) studies) which
can be attributed to either victim blaming attitudes or concerns about
the woman's sexual purity (a key feature of womanhood according to
previous theoretical discussion on MHB). The sexual assault described
in the current study, may have acted as a catalyst focusing participants'
perceptions on the wife, rather than how she responded to threat.
Participants may be victim blaming or fault her for choosing a man
unwilling to defend her.
Perceptions of the male friend were then tested as a function of MHB
and intervenor condition (Fig. 7). MHBS and intervenor condition,
again, explained a moderate amount of variance in positive perceptions
of the male friend. The MHBS x Intervenor interaction was, again,
significant. Simple slopes of MHBS for perceptions of the male friend
showed the male friend was perceived more positively as a function of
MHBS when either he or the husband intervened. The male friend was
Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110259
9.
Positive Perceptions
7.
Husband 5. Husband
Wife Wife
Friend Friend
No one 3. No one
1.
-1 SD +1 SD
MHBS
Fig. 7. Positive perceptions of the friend in Study 3.
perceived more negatively as a function of MHBS when the wife or no
one intervened.
Our study revealed a clear pattern of results. Specifically, men are
socially rewarded as a function of MHB for responding aggressively to
threats and insults against their female partner or friend. Likewise,
women responding aggressively to threat are perceived positively
Husband across the MHBS continuum. Introducing nuance, the current study
showed MHBS related to more negative perceptions of the wife when no
Wife
Friend one responded to the threat. One explanation might be participants'
No one perceptions of the woman's reputation being damaged by the sexual
assault and/or choosing men unwilling to defend her. Another ex-
planation may be that, regardless of response, the threat was directed at
her, thus, as a function of MHB, women may be expected to stand up for
and defend themselves similarly to men. However, unlike men, this
expectation may not extend to the defense of others.
6. General discussion
We examined how women and men are perceived for engaging in
aggressive responses to threats and insults. Previous research on mas-
culine honor beliefs within cultures of honor had primarily focused on
the expectations for men (e.g., Cohen et al., 1996; Cohen & Nisbett,
1994; Nisbett, 1993), with empirical research regarding cultural ex-
pectations of women rarely going beyond sexual purity, motherhood,
and the socialization of boys and young men (e.g., Rodriguez Mosquera,
2011, 2013, 2016; Vandello et al., 2009; Vandello & Bosson, 2013;
Vandello & Cohen, 2003). We offered our Shifting Honor Expectations
hypothesis which predicted differing expectations for men and women
according to masculine honor ideologies. Specifically, because men are
generally defined as protectors according to honor ideology, we hy-
pothesized men's responses to threats and insults would be more ex-
pected than for women. Consistent with previous research (e.g., O'Dea
et al., 2017, 2018), Study 1 showed women with higher MHB perceived
their male significant other more positively for aggressively responding
to insult, and less positively for ignoring the insult. Interestingly, and
extending previous research, we found, unlike women, men higher in
masculine honor beliefs perceived their female significant other's be-
havior as more honorable and appropriate whether she responded ag-
gressively or ignored the insult directed at him.
Study 2 replicated our previous findings showing higher masculine
honor beliefs associated with more positive perceptions of men who
responded aggressively to, and more negative perceptions of men who
ignored, an insult directed at their wife. Interestingly, perceptions of
the wife mirrored these relationships. When she was defended by her
male significant other, higher masculine honor beliefs were associated
with more positive perceptions of her, but when her male significant
other ignored the insult directed at her, higher masculine honor beliefs
were associated with more positive perceptions of the wife. When the
wife confronted the threat, higher masculine honor beliefs were
8
S.T. Chalman, et al.
associated with more positive perceptions of her and were unrelated to
perceptions of her male significant other, suggesting that his honor is
not diminished if she responds aggressively to defend him. Further
supporting our Shifting Honor Expectations hypothesis, perceptions of
the wife were not diminished as a function of masculine honor beliefs
when she chose to ignore the threat directed at her husband.
We further tested the generalizability of our findings in Study 3 by
adding a male friend to the vignette. Because masculine honor is a
social construct, we hypothesized the effects of the previous studies
would be exacerbated by the presence of a male friend; however, ex-
pectations of the husband may not extend to the friend who is less
connected to the wife. Again, as a function of MHB, perceptions of the
husband were increased when he responded aggressively to the threat
and decreased when no one responded aggressively. Interestingly, it
appeared the male friend's presence resulted in the husband being
perceived more negatively as a function of masculine honor beliefs
when his wife defended herself, providing support for the social aspects
of masculine honor ideologies. Masculine honor beliefs were unrelated
to perceptions of the husband when his male friend defended his wife.
Similar to Studies 1 and 2, the wife was, again, perceived quite posi-
tively as a function of masculine honor beliefs when she defended
herself, and masculine honor beliefs were associated with more positive
perceptions of her when her husband defended her from the threat.
Unlike Studies 1 and 2, masculine honor beliefs were associated with
more negative perceptions of her when no one responded to the threat.
This effect could either be due to the severity of the threat (sexual as-
sault in Study 3 compared to insult in the previous studies) or a more
nuanced expectation for women – they are expected to stand up for
themselves, but not to defend others (or at least not men – future re-
search should examine women's and men's roles in the defense of their
children). Perceptions of the male friend were similar to perceptions of
the husband – he was perceived more positively as a function of mas-
culine honor beliefs when either he or the husband responded aggres-
sively to the threat and more negatively when either the wife or no one
responded to the threat.
6.1. Limitations
Like many previous studies on masculine honor beliefs, our studies
used vignettes describing a scene in which participants envisioned
themselves in a cross-sectional examination of these effects. Emulating
true emotional and physiological reactions is difficult. Reported per-
ceptions of the incident may be affected by responding from a con-
trolled environment. Still, this method has rendered physical and
physiological results comparable to in-person studies (e.g., O'Dea et al.,
2017, 2018; Osterman & Brown, 2011).
Further, our studies relied specifically on expectations for men in
the United States Southern culture of honor. While this was appropriate
for our participants, all from the United States, it is important to note
the acceptance of violence by women may not extend to all cultures of
honor discussed in existing literature (e.g., Mediterranean, Spain,
Machismo cultures). As such, we hope our research, rather than being a
sweeping reconceptualization of honor worldwide, inspires future work
not limited to predominantly male-centric expectations (with added
focus for women, people of color, sexual minorities, and other groups of
people traditionally overlooked by honor research). Furthermore, our
findings may not generalize to other situations, vignettes, or partici-
pants. Participants were given very specific examples in which their
significant other was insulted or sexually assaulted. Responses from
participants, unable to suspend belief, may have been affected and our
findings may not generalize beyond these specific instances. These
vignettes were also limited by the violent retaliation by the protagonist.
Additional research should examine how these effects generalize to
other forms of confrontation (e.g., verbal, posturing or getting in the face
of the threatening other). We also did not control for factors such as
socioeconomic status, or other variables that may affect people's
9
Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110259
likelihood of perceiving aggression as appropriate (e.g., risk-taking
propensities, impulsivity).
6.2. Implications
Previous research into masculine honor beliefs shows men who
endorse masculine honor ideologies believe men are expected to act as
protectors of themselves, as well as their significant others, property,
and community. Previous research shows women can also endorse
masculine honor beliefs. Still, little research has examined how women
acting as protectors are perceived by others as a function of masculine
honor beliefs. Women's honor has predominately been ascribed to their
adherence to familial duties and maintaining sexual purity. Our re-
search reveals potential for women to be protectors and generate their
own reputation as a defenders. Therefore, our research may inspire a
more sophisticated reconceptualization of masculine honor as it applies
to women.
It may be that all members of a culture of honor are rewarded as a
function of these ideologies for responding aggressively to insults and
threats, but only men are firmly held to these standards. We contend
this shifting expectation could help explain why approximately 97% of
perpetrators of extreme forms of violence (e.g., school shootings) in
modern society are committed by young (and in cultures of honor,
primarily White) men (Statista Research Department, 2020). Young
boys of lesser physical, financial, or intellectual stature may be more
readily targeted by others possessing greater resources in strength,
wealth, or intelligence (Henry et al., 2014). Young children who are
bullied frequently exhibit anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and
maladjustment (Arseneault et al., 2006; Egan & Perry, 1998; Hodges &
Perry, 1999; Juvonen et al., 2003; Nansel et al., 2001; Veenstra et al.,
2005). As described, cultures of honor place strict expectations on
young boys to defend themselves (e.g., Nisbett, 1993; Saucier, Till,
et al., 2015), and simultaneously discourage seeking therapy to miti-
gate the negative effects of bullying (Brown et al., 2014). If targets feel
unable to effectively respond to threat and insult on their own, they
might seek outside resources (e.g., weapons) to bolster their ability to
retaliate, which is consistent with recent research suggesting a strong
relationship between masculine honor ideologies and support for the
use of weapons and extreme forms of violence (e.g., O'Dea et al., 2019).
Future research should examine perceptions of bullies and their victims
as a function of masculine honor beliefs.
7. Conclusion
Our findings are the first to more inclusively examine the shifting
expectations for men and women according to masculine honor ideol-
ogies. Across three studies we supported our Shifting Honor
Expectations hypothesis, suggesting both men and women are rewarded
for violent responses to threats and insults, but only men are held to
these expectations as a function of masculine honor ideologies. We
hope these findings will promote growth in a previously unexplored
area of masculine honor research. Virtually all extant theoretical dis-
cussion and empirical findings related to masculine honor beliefs and
women has focused on the role of women as socializers and the familial
duty of women. We contend this male-centric focus is problematic and
does not identify the same and differing expectations for men and
women in cultures of honor. Better understanding the differing ex-
pectations society places on men and women may explain manifesta-
tions of extreme violence that continue to plague our society.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Steven T. Chalman:Conceptualization, Methodology,
Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,
Visualization.Conor J. O'Dea:Conceptualization, Methodology,
Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,
S.T. Chalman, et al.
Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Data curation,
Formal analysis.John Renfroe:Conceptualization, Methodology,
Investigation, Writing - original draft.Donald A. Saucier:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing,
Supervision.
Acknowledgments
These studies were partially funded by the Kansas State University
College of Arts and Sciences, Undergraduate Research Award presented
to Steven Chalman.
References
Arseneault, L., Walsh, E., Trzesniewski, K., Newcombe, R., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E.
(2006). Bullying victimization uniquely contributes to adjustment problems in young
children: A nationally representative cohort study. Pediatrics, 118, 130–138.
Baaz, M. E., & Stern, M. (2009). Why do soldiers rape? Masculinity, violence, and sexu-
ality in the armed forces in the Congo (DRC). International Studies Quarterly, 53(2),
495–518.
Barnes, C. D., Brown, R. P., & Osterman, L. L. (2012). Don’t tread on me: Masculine honor
ideology in the U.S. and militant responses to terrorism. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 38(8), 1018–1029.
Bettencourt, B. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of
provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119(3), 422–447.
Bjorkqvist, K. (2018). Gender differences in aggression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19,
39–42.
Bosson, J. K., & Vandello, J. A. (2011). Precarious manhood and its links to action and
aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 82–86.
Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R. M., Weaver, J. R., & Wasti, S. A. (2009).
Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggression. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 35, 623–634.
Brown, R. P., Imura, M., & Mayeux, L. (2014). Honor and the stigma of mental healthcare.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1119–1131.
Cichangir, S. (2012). Gender specific honor codes and cultural change. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 16(3), 319–333.
Cohen, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1994). Self-protection and the culture of honor: Explaining
Southern violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 551–567. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205012.
Cohen, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1997). Field experiments examining the culture of honor: The
role of institutions in perpetuating norms of violence. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1188–1199.
Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the
Southern culture of honor: An “experimental ethnography.”. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 945–960.
Cohen, D., Vandello, J., Puente, S., & Rantilla, A. (1999). “When you call me that, smile!”
How norms for politeness, interaction styles, and aggression work together in
southern culture. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(3), 257–275.
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization?
Developmental Psychology, 34(2), 299–309.
Figueredo, A. J., Tal, I. R., McNeil, P., & Guillen, A. (2004). Farmers, herders, and fishers:
The ecology of revenge. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 336–353.
Fischer, A. H., Manstead, A. S. R., & Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M. (1999). The role of
honour-related vs. individualistic values in conceptualizing pride, shame, and anger:
Spanish and Dutch cultural prototypes. Cognition and Emotion, 13(2), 149–179.
Glick, P., Gangl, C., Gibb, S., Klumpner, S., & Weinberg, E. (2007). Defensive reactions to
masculinity threat: More negative affect toward effiminate (but not masculine) gay
men. Sex Roles, 57(1–2), 55–59.
Guerra, V. M., Gouveia, V. V., Araujo, R. C. R., de Andrade, J. M., & Gaudencio, C. A.
(2013). Honor scale: Evidence on construct validity. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 43, 1273–1280.
Hamberger, L. K., & Guse, C. E. (2002). Men’s and women’s use of intimate partner
violence in clinical sample. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1301–1331.
Harinck, F., Shafa, S., Ellemers, N., & Beersma, B. (2013). The good news about honor
culture: The preference for cooperative conflict management in the absence of insults.
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(2), 67–78.
Henry, P. J., Butler, S. E., & Brandt, M. J. (2014). The influence of target group status on
the perception of the offensiveness of group-based slurs. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 53, 185–192.
Hodges, E. V., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents and con-
sequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,
677–685.
Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying among young adolescents:
The strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231–1237.
Litman, L., Robinson, J., & Abberbock, T. (2016). TurkPrime.com: A versatile
10
Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110259
crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 1–10.
Martens, A. L., & Saucier, D. A. (In preparation). Conceptualizing feminine honor. A re-
view of the Southern United States honor literature.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P.
(2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psy-
chosocial adjustment. JAMA, 285(16), 2094–2100.
Netchaeva, E., Kouchaki, M., & Sheppard, L. D. (2015). A man’s (precarious) place: Men’s
experienced threat and self-assertive reactions to female superiors. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(9), 1247–1259.
Nisbett, R. E. (1993). Violence and U.S. regional culture. American Psychologist, 48,
441–449.
O’Dea, C. J., Castro Bueno, A. M., & Saucier, D. A. (2017). Fight or flight: Perceptions of
men who confront versus ignore threats to themselves and others. Personality and
Individual Differences, 104, 345–351.
O’Dea, C. J., Chalman, S. T., Castro Bueno, A. M., & Saucier, D. A. (2018). Conditional
aggression: Perceptions of male violence in response to threat and provocation.
Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2018.04.029.
O’Dea, C. J., Martens, A. L., & Saucier, D. A. (2019). Hitting below the belt: Masculine
honor beliefs and perceptions of unfair fighting behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 45(3),
229–244.
Osterman, L. L., & Brown, R. P. (2011). Culture of honor and violence against the self.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1611–1623.
Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M. (2011). Masculine and feminine honor codes. Revista de
Psicologia Social, 26(1), 63–72.
Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M. (2013). In the name of honor: On virtue, reputation and
violence. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(3), 271–278.
Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M. (2016). On the importance of family, morality, masculine and
feminine honor for theory and research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,
10(8), 431–443.
Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, A. H. (2002a). Honour in the
Mediterranean and Northern Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 16–36.
Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, A. H. (2002b). The role of
honour concerns in emotional reactions to offences. Cognition and Emotion, 16(1),
143–163.
Salvati, M., Ioverno, S., Giacomantonio, M., & Baiocco, R. (2016). Attitude toward gay
men in an Italian sample: Masculinity and sexual orientation make a difference.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 13(2), 109–118.
Saucier, D. A., Miller, S. S., & O'Dea, C. J. (Submitted). Individual differences in masculine
honor beliefs and men's perceptions of insults targeting their masculinity.
Saucier, D. A., Stanford, A. J., Miller, S. S., Martens, A. L., Miller, A. K., Jones, T. L., ...
Burns, M. D. (2016). Masculine honor beliefs: Measurement and correlates.
Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.
12.049.
Saucier, D. A., Strain, M. L., Hockett, J. M., & McManus, J. L. (2015). Stereotypic beliefs
about masculine honor are associated with perceptions of rape and women who have
been raped. Social Psychology, 46, 228–241.
Saucier, D. A., Till, D. F., Miller, S. S., O’Dea, C. J., & Andres, E. B. (2015). Slurs against
masculinity: Masculine honor beliefs and men’s reactions to slurs. Language Sciences,
52, 108–120.
Simmons, Joseph P. and Nelson, Leif D. and Simonsohn, Uri, Life after P-Hacking (2013).
Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA,
17–19 January 2013.: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2205186 or https://doi.org/10.
2139/ssrn.2205186 (Available at SSRN).
Statista Research Department (2020, March). Number of mass shootings in the United States
between 1982 and February 2020, by shooter’s gender. Statistahttps://www.statista.
com/statistics/476445/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-gender/.
Swan, S. C., & Snow, D. L. (2002). A typology of women’s use of violence in intimate
relationships. Violence Against Women, 8(3), 286–319.
Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis
of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,
14(2), 101–113.
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008).
Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 95,
1325–1339.
Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (2003). Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural
scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84(5), 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.997.
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
U.S. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 81–104.
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel,
J. (2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies,
victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41,
672–682.
Wilson VanVoorhis, C. R., & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of
thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology,
3(2), 43–50.