No abstract

People from honor cultures are generally seen as prone to react aggressively in conflict situations. The current research challenges this view and shows that people from honor cultures react more constructively to a conflict situation than people from dignity cultures, as long as they are not insulted. In an experiment in which 41 honor and 41 dignity participants reacted to a conflict situation with or without insult, we showed that—as long as they are not insulted—people from honor cultures handled potential conflict situations more constructively than people from dignity cultures. Thus, the good news about people from honor cultures is that they are willing and able to handle conflict situations constructively—even more so than people from dignity cultures—as long as they are not insulted.

People from honor cultures are generally seen as prone to react aggressively in conflict situations. The current research challenges this view and shows that people from honor cultures react more constructively to a conflict situation than people from dignity cultures, as long as they are not insulted. In an experiment in which 41 honor and 41 dignity participants reacted to a conflict situation with or without insult, we showed that-as long as they are not insulted-people from honor cultures handled potential conflict situations more constructively than people from dignity cultures. Thus, the good news about people from honor cultures is that they are willing and able to handle conflict situations constructively-even more so than people from dignity cultures-as long as they are not insulted.

In two studies, we examined honor‐related differences in morality versus competence evaluations as a way to tap into social judgment formation after an insult. In Study 1, we distinguished between high‐honor and low‐honor cultures. Participants' evaluations of a norm transgressor were gathered. Results indicated that high‐honor participants devalued the transgressor more strongly in terms of morality than competence in comparison with low‐honor participants. In Study 2, we distinguished between participants with high‐ and low‐honor values and investigated morality and competence in self‐perception. Participants were asked to respond to different types of insults gathered in Study 1. High‐honor participants were primarily harmed in their morality after being insulted, while this prominence was less apparent in low‐honor participants. Both studies showed that those who value honor highly moralize insults to a greater extent, because they take more offense to them.

Apologies can have desirable effects on the reduction of anger and may foster forgiveness. Yet, we know little about the effectiveness of apologies across different cultures. In this research, we distinguished two important components of apologies: admission of blame by the self and the expression of remorse for the plight of the other. We investigated how these two components resonate with cultural values associated with dignity and honor. Results revealed that although an apology increased forgiveness in both cultures, honor-culture members tended to forgive less and retaliate more than dignity-culture members, after an apology. This cultural difference was mediated by the extent to which honor-culture (vs. dignity-culture) members perceived the apology to express (less) remorse and thus be (less) sincere.