1. Summary of Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle & Schwarz (1996): Insult, Aggression, and the Southern Culture of Honor: An “Experimental Ethongraphy” LIFE 2004 Yee Lee Shing & Lars Penke

3. Introduction Background: Causes of fights and homicides are quite often „trivial“: Insults of reputation, status and honor Causes of fights and homicides are quite often „trivial“: Insults of reputation, status and honor Anthropology: „Culture of honor“ Anthropology: „Culture of honor“ Cultural difference between northern and southern US states Cultural difference between northern and southern US states Historical reason: Herding → „lex talionis“ Historical reason: Herding → „lex talionis“

4. General hypotheses Compared with northerns (N), southern (S) US males should be: – more likely to view an insult as damaging to their status and reputation – more emotionally and physiologically upset by the insult – more cognitively, physiologically and behaviorally prepared for aggressive and dominant behavior

5. Study 1: Design 42 N and 41 S male white non-Hispanic non-Jewish undergraduates 42 N and 41 S male white non-Hispanic non-Jewish undergraduates Cover story Cover story 2 x 2 between subjects design 2 x 2 between subjects design Manipulation: Confederate bumped into subject with shoulder and called him an „asshole“ Manipulation: Confederate bumped into subject with shoulder and called him an „asshole“ Two covert, visible observers (1 ♂, 1 ♀) Two covert, visible observers (1 ♂, 1 ♀)

6. Study 1: Measures Emotional ratings by observers (angry, amused, aroused, flustered, resigned, wary) Emotional ratings by observers (angry, amused, aroused, flustered, resigned, wary) Projective tasks Projective tasks Word completion task Word completion task Facial expression rating task Facial expression rating task Two scenario completion tasks („ambulance“ & „mate poaching challenge“) Two scenario completion tasks („ambulance“ & „mate poaching challenge“)

7. Study 1: Results 85% of the insulted Ss, but only 35% of insulted Ns displayed more anger than amusement 85% of the insulted Ss, but only 35% of insulted Ns displayed more anger than amusement No differences between conditions in the other emotions, word completions, face ratings, or „ambulance“ scenario No differences between conditions in the other emotions, word completions, face ratings, or „ambulance“ scenario 75% of insulted Ss completed the „mate poaching challenge“ with (threat of) violence, compared to 20-55% in the other conditions 75% of insulted Ss completed the „mate poaching challenge“ with (threat of) violence, compared to 20-55% in the other conditions → Insults make southern males more angry and lower their threshold to aggress in subsequent affronts, but not in subsequent neutral situations

8. Study 2 3 conditions (control vs. public vs. private) 3 conditions (control vs. public vs. private) Measurements: Measurements: - emotion ratings (only public condition) - cortisol level - testosterone level - desire to demonstrate toughness (electric shock stress test) - interpretation of ambiguous stimuli

9. Study 2: Results Emotion Ratings - nonsignificant Emotion Ratings - nonsignificant ∆ cortisol level - (insulted) S > N ∆ cortisol level - (insulted) S > N ∆ testosterone level - (insulted) S > N ∆ testosterone level - (insulted) S > N Toughness demonstration (public - private) Toughness demonstration (public - private) - (insulted or not) S > N Interpretation of ambiguous stimuli - nonsignificant Interpretation of ambiguous stimuli - nonsignificant - Southerners were more stressed, and more primed for future aggression after insult. However, unthreatening (ambiguous) materials do not elicit increased hostility from insulted southerners. - Southerners were more stressed, and more primed for future aggression after insult. However, unthreatening (ambiguous) materials do not elicit increased hostility from insulted southerners.

10. Study 3 3 conditions (control vs.public vs. private) 3 conditions (control vs.public vs. private) Measurements: Measurements: – “Chicken” game – Encounter with evaluator (evaluate handshake, eye contact, dominance vs. submission) – Self-perceived reputation (public condition: witness) – “Macho” behavior questionnaire

11. Study 3: Results “Chicken” game “Chicken” game - control S > insulted S Evaluator Evaluator - handshake and dominance insulted S > control S insulted S > control S Self-perceived reputation Self-perceived reputation - largest damage to publicly insulted southerners “Macho” questionnaire “Macho” questionnaire - Nonsignificant -

12. Summary Control S and N were indistinguishable. S may actually be more friendly and polite. Control S and N were indistinguishable. S may actually be more friendly and polite. Insult affects S more dramatically. Insult affects S more dramatically. Why? Why? 1) S less accustomed to rudeness 2) Culture-of-honor norm persists in the South