A Socio-Ecological and Multilevel Approach to the Role of Honour Cultures on Violence Justification: Resource Scarcity and Ineffective Law Enforcement

Abstract

This study examines how the socio-ecology of honour shapes the justification of violence, focusing on resource scarcity and inadequate law enforcement at both national and individual levels. Using World Values Survey data and a multilevel design (57 countries, N = 73,838), we found that personal experiences of economic precarity and witnessing crime predict stronger justification of violence. These relationships were moderated by country-level indicators of honour-related socio-ecology: national-level low income, unequal distribution of resources, and low adherence to the rule of law, used as proxies of resource scarcity and inadequate law enforcement. In countries with weak socio-ecological roots of honour (higher income, lower inequality, and stricter rule of law), personal experiences of precarity and crime exposure are linked to stronger justification of violence, whereas in countries with strong socio-ecological roots of honour, the effect sizes of these associations were negligible. We discuss the social comparison, cultural fit, and cultural backlash hypotheses as possible explanations of the observed interaction effect between national- and individual-level factors.

Keywords

honour justification of violence resource scarcity law enforcement precarity frequency of crime

Introduction

Understanding and mitigating sources of interpersonal violence has been a core subject in humanities and social sciences including in disciplines such as history, anthropology, criminology, and psychology. In one prominent line of cross-disciplinary research which focused on unfolding the reasons for higher levels of violence (especially in the form of argument-related homicide) among white men living in rural areas and small towns of southern (vs. northern) regions of the U.S., scholars pointed to the role of a culture of honour in this region brought by Scot-Irish settlers who led a herding economy (Cohen et al., 1996; McWhiney, 1988; Wyatt-Brown, 1982, 1986). According to this account, a herding economy characterised by scarcity or portability of resources and absent or ineffective law enforcement has led to the foundations of a culture of honour where individuals engaged in behaviours that helped them establish a reputation for toughness and strength by demonstrating readiness to retaliate against threats to their livelihood and engage in aggressive behaviour when needed (Brown, 2016; Brown & Osterman, 2012; Henry, 2009; Nisbett, 1993; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996; Nowak et al., 2016).

In the current research, we follow this tradition of inquiry by adopting a multilevel approach to the study of the joint role of national-level resource scarcity and ineffective law enforcement, on one hand, and individuals’ personal experiences of these ecological characteristics, on the other hand, in the extent to which they find violence a justified act. Specifically, in this study we ask (a) whether people in countries where socio-ecological facilitators of honour cultures are more prevalent (e.g., country-level scarce resources and inadequate law enforcement) are more likely to justify violence; (b) to what extent personal experiences related to these socio-ecological facilitators of honour cultures (precarity and crime exposure) predict justification of violence; and (c) whether these country- and individual-level experiences of these socio-ecological conditions interact in predicting justification of violence. By doing so, in line with the literature on cultures of honour (e.g., Uskul & Cross, 2019, 2020; Uskul, Cross et al., 2023; Uskul, Kirchner-Häusler et al., 2023; Vignoles et al., 2024), we consider the complex and multidimensional nature of honour, which prescribes social norms at the societal level and embodies distinct psychological characteristics at the individual level.

Honour and Justification of Violence

Leung and Cohen (2011) distinguished between cultural logics of honour, face, and dignity with Anglo-Western and East Asian cultural contexts taken as promoting cultural logics of dignity and face, respectively, and the Mediterranean, West Asian and North African, Latin American, South Asian, and the Southern U.S. regions promoting a cultural logic of honour (see Vignoles et al., 2024). In societies where a cultural logic of honour shapes much of social behaviour, individual worth is claimed to be both internal and external, and good behaviour is driven by a desire to avoid shame or retaliation. One consequence thereof is that the norm of reciprocity, both in positive (returning favours) and negative (retaliation for insults) forms, plays a central role in social relationships. Reciprocity in honour cultures can result in behaviours that may seem irrational in the short term (e.g., engaging in a duel) but in the long term serve a crucial function for survival through maintenance of a reputation of not-to-be-messed-with kind of a person in contexts where livelihoods depend on portable resources (e.g., herds of cattle) and where the rule of law is ineffective or absent (Cohen et al., 2018; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996; Nowak et al., 2016).

Studies showed that in the absence of threat, the cultural logic of honour promotes prosocial behaviours. For instance, people in cultures of honour see being trustworthy, positive treatment, and hospitality as a way of acquiring and enduring their reputation (Nisbett & Cohen, 1996). Endorsement of honour values related to family reputation is found to be associated with stronger levels of coordination (Jin et al., 2025). Yet, studies more often examined how negative reciprocity manifests itself in cultural groups that promote honour using a diverse set of methodologies, leading to a wide-ranging investigation of the link between honour and aggressive or violent actions in response to threats to defending one’s reputation (for reviews see Uskul & Cross, 2019; Uskul et al., 2019, Uskul et al., 2023). For example, archival research has shown that southern states in the U.S. have higher rates of argument-related homicides, executions, and permissive gun control laws compared to the North (Ayers, 1991; Messner et al., 2005; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996). Survey and experimental studies conducted in different cultural contexts have shown that individuals from groups promoting a cultural logic of honour (e.g., Turkey, Italy, Brazil, southern U.S.) respond more aggressively to insults, display higher approval of confrontation or retaliation against attackers, and view a man’s violent response to infidelity as more honourable and positive than individuals from groups promoting a cultural logic of dignity (e.g., the Netherlands, the U.K., northern U.S.; e.g., Cihangir, 2013; Cohen et al., 1996; Cross et al., 2013; Günsoy et al., 2024; Uskul et al., 2012, Uskul et al., 2015; Uysal et al., 2021; Vandello & Cohen, 2003; Vandello et al., 2009; van Osch et al., 2013). Experiments run in the field support this line of evidence; for example, in the U.S., employers in southern honour states were found to be more understanding and cooperative towards job candidates with criminal records stemming from honour-related conflicts compared to employers in northern non-honour states (Cohen & Nisbett, 1997). As this brief overview shows, research consistently finds that individuals from groups where honour is highly valued show greater support for aggressive or violent actions against honour threats than those from groups where honour plays a less central role.

Socio-Ecological Roots of Honour

Honour cultures tend to emerge in socio-ecological contexts characterised by scarce resources, where the appropriation of possessions by others is commonplace, and law enforcement is either weak or absent (for a review, see Uskul & Cross, 2020). Within such contexts, reputation and honour, founded on principles of retaliation, become valued commodities. Cohen and Nisbett (1994) examined the cultural underpinnings of violence, particularly prevalent in the southern U.S., arguing that the prevalence of herding cultures in the history of the region, characterised by a need for self-reliance and protection of property, has fostered a culture of honour where violence becomes a means of deterrence in the absence of effective law enforcement (see Nisbett, 1993). They further argued that historical ideologies justifying violence for self-protection and honour maintenance continue to influence contemporary attitudes towards violence, despite changing socio-economic conditions. In such contexts, seemingly minor affronts are not seen as isolated incidents but are embedded within a larger social context of reputation and honour, where maintaining a credible threat of violence becomes imperative for safeguarding one’s standing in the community (Cohen et al., 1996; Uysal et al., 2026) and serve the larger aim of establishing oneself or one’s family as entities not to be trifled with or messed up—a means of protecting scarce resources in the absence of effective law enforcement.

Research has shown that in cultures where honour is highly valued, the likelihood of violent conflicts increases because individuals are unable to back down without losing respect (Cohen & Nisbett, 1994). This creates a social environment where violence becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as both parties in a conflict know that backing down would result in a loss of honour. At the societal level, cultural logics of honour shape laws and social policies, leading, for example, to higher rates of violent television viewership, tolerance of corporal punishment in schools, and lenient domestic violence policies in the Southern (vs. Northern) U.S. (Baron & Straus, 1989; Cohen, 1996, 1998; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996). These cultural norms and policies support the use of violence to maintain honour and protect oneself and one’s family.

Empirical evidence for the historical socio-ecological roots of the emergence of a culture of honour in the U.S. South has focused on the role of cattle herding as a subsistence economy in the shaping of a culture of honour and its social psychological consequences. For example, regions of the U.S. settled by Scot-Irish immigrants (herders) were found to exhibit higher rates of white male-perpetrated homicides compared to regions settled by farmers (Grosjean, 2014). Similarly, the number of Presbyterian churches in a region in 1850, used as a proxy for Scot-Irish herder settlement, predicted argument-related homicides between 1983 and 1998 in herding-dominated areas (Baller et al., 2009). Contemporary homicide rates by white men were also significantly higher in historically herding regions than in farming regions of the U.S. South (Messner et al., 2005). These studies collectively demonstrate evidence for socio-ecological roots of honour, such as resource scarcity and inadequate law enforcement, that emerge through differences in means of subsistence, focusing primarily on the U.S. context. Preliminary evidence emerging from a more global context supported this pattern of findings: a large-scale cross-national investigation revealed that the combination of country-level resource scarcity and weak law enforcement emerged as the strongest socio-structural predictor of increased homicide rates between 2001 and 2005 across 51 nations (Altheimer, 2012).

The Link Between Honour and Different Forms of Violence

Although the original focus of research investigating the honour-violence link was on argument-related homicide, following works were extended to the study of the role of honour in other forms of violence. For example, Cohen and Nisbett (1994) provided evidence for the association between honour and the justification of domestic violence, demonstrating stronger approval of parental violence against their children as punishment (e.g., spanking when their children shoplifted) in the rural U.S. South compared to the U.S. Midwest. About half of Southern participants strongly agreed that spanking was an appropriate way of disciplining their children. Moreover, Cohen (1996) demonstrated a significant regional difference between the southern U.S. and the rest of the U.S. in the percentage of states mandating arrest for domestic violence incidents, with almost half of the northern and western states mandating arrest for domestic violence and none of the southern states doing so. Cohen and Nisbett (1994) discussed that higher rates of argument-related homicide in the southern U.S., compared to the northern U.S., are likely to be a result of honour-related responses to affairs and family disputes in the region.

Similarly, Gul and Schuster (2020) examined attitudes towards marital rape, revealing that Turkish respondents were more prone to blame the victim and less likely to label the incident as rape compared with participants from the U.K. or Germany. In another study conducted among men in India, participants evaluated responses to gender norm transgressions by a daughter. Those who strongly endorsed the goal of restoring honour were more inclined to report punitive actions such as slapping or disowning, especially if the community was aware of the transgression (Ashokkumar & Swann, 2023). Finally, Cohen and Nisbett (1994) argued that Southerners in the U.S. were more likely to approve of violence for defending their honour, protecting the family, and disciplining children, emphasising notions of “protection, retribution, and socialisation.” Building on this body of evidence, in the current study, we focused on the justification of three types of violent behaviour: everyday violence (i.e., “violence against others”), domestic violence (i.e., “violence of men against their wives”), and parental violence (i.e., “violence of parents against their kids”).

A Multilevel Approach

Honour is a multifaceted construct (e.g., Rodriguez Mosquera, 2016; Vignoles et al., 2024) that operates at both individual and societal levels, shaping personal conduct and social policies and norms (Cohen, 1996, 1998; Cohen & Nisbett, 1994). Understanding this complexity requires a multi-level analysis that considers both personal experiences and the broader socio-ecological context in which these experiences are situated. At the individual level, honour, as dignity and face, is conceptualised as a cultural logic, operationalised through the personal endorsement of associated beliefs, values, and behaviours such as reciprocity, retaliation, and toughness (Uskul et al., 2023; Uysal et al., 2026). Societally, this cultural logic shapes the emergence, maintenance, and execution of societal norms, rules, and policies, as summarised above. While honour norms may hold sway in cultural contexts conducive to their adaptation, there is individual variation in the extent to which these norms are upheld (Leung & Cohen, 2011). Even within cultures with strong socio-ecological roots of honour, individuals may reject these altogether or adhere to them in some contexts, but not in others. Following this approach, we delineate in the current research between cultural and individual layers in examining the role of socio-ecological antecedents of honour cultures (i.e., scarcity of resources and inadequate law enforcement) in violence justification.

From a socio-ecological standpoint, the focus shifts to whether a country or socio-geographic region historically experienced scarcity and competitive resource dynamics alongside weak law enforcement. From an individual point of view, emphasis is placed on personal experiences of resource scarcity (such as economic precarity) and perceptions of law enforcement efficacy beyond material national averages (such as the frequency of witnessing neighbourhood crime). The interplay between the broader socio-ecology and individual experiences yields a matrix of socio-ecological facilitators within honour cultures. The possible combinations extend beyond binary formulations, encompassing diverse combinations arising from cultural and individual-level interactions. For instance, individuals may reside in resource-scarce countries with weak law enforcement but not personally experience economic precarity or witness crime. Conversely, individuals in affluent, safe nations may experience economic precarity or insecurity in their own lives. Thus, the multilevel approach we take in the current study allows us to examine the Culture x Person interaction of socio-ecological facilitators of honour cultures (Leung & Cohen, 2011; Uskul & Cross, 2020) in violence justification. To provide a comprehensive understanding of the ramifications of these varied possibilities on violence justification across cultures and individuals, we turned to the World Values Survey (WVS) data to analyse relevant country indices in a multi-level framework (for the conceptual model, see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

Method

Data

We retrieved individual-level data from the World Value Survey 7th Wave (WVS-7) conducted in 64 countries between 2017 and 2022¹ (Haerpfer et al., 2022). In each country, the sampling strategy followed the random probability representative sampling method, and, in most countries, data were collected via face-to-face interviews. For individual-level relationships (Models 1 and 2), the analyses reported below are based on data from 57 countries (n = 73,838) in which individual-level data (e.g., precarity and frequency of crime) in WVS-7 is available. The average age in the sample was 42.85 (range = 16–103, SD = 16.36); about one-fourth (24.7%) of the sample reported having completed a university or higher degree, and 52.5% self-identified as women. For multi-level model and interaction analysis (Models 3 and 4), the analyses are based on data from 47 countries (n = 65,354) in which country-level data in indices (Rule of Law, National Income, Equal Distribution of Resources) is available. The raw data can be accessed on the Open Science Framework (OSF) webpage: https://osf.io/gxwdt

Materials

Individual-Level (Level 1) Predictors

We retrieved from the dataset the following two measures as predictors: precarity and frequency of crime witnessed in one’s neighbourhood as proxies for scarce resources and inadequate law enforcement, respectively. Precarity was measured with three items that asked participants to indicate “in the last 12 months, how often have your or your family gone without ‘enough food to eat’, ‘medicine or medical treatment that you need’, and ‘a cash income’” (1 = never to 4 = often, α = .78). The frequency of crime witnessed in one’s neighbourhood was measured with four items that asked participants to indicate “how frequently do the following things occur in your neighbourhood?”: “robberies,” “drug sale in streets,” “street violence and fights,” and “sexual harassment” (1 = not at all to 4 = very frequently, α = .83).

Macro-Level (Level 2) Predictor

To create a macro-level predictor as a proxy of socio-ecological roots of honour for each country, we used three country scores: the Rule of Law Index as a proxy of inadequate law enforcement; the UNDP Income Index and the Equal Distribution of Resources Score as proxies of resource scarcity. Rule of Law scores were retrieved from the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index 2020² based on experiences and perceptions of the public, legal practitioners, and experts, and derived from 130,000+ household surveys and 4,000+ expert surveys. The scores were calculated based on eight factors: constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement, civil justice, and criminal justice (0 = minimum [weakest adherence to rule of law] to 1 = maximum [strongest adherence to rule of law]). Income scores were retrieved from the Human Development Index (UNDP, 2018), which are calculated based on national income per capita in each country (0 = minimum to 1 = maximum). Finally, Equal Distribution of Resources scores were retrieved from the Varieties of Democracy Project (V-DEM, 2021), which reflect how tangible and intangible resources are distributed in society and are calculated based on universalistic welfare policies, educational and health equality (0 = minimum [highest unequal distribution] to 1 = maximum [lowest unequal distribution]). While the Gini Index is commonly used for measuring inequality at the country level, we opted for the equal distribution of resources index due to the greater number of countries and its diverse regional representation. Strong positive correlations (.68 < r < .83) between the three macro-level indicators suggested an overarching socio-ecological pattern. A principal component analysis conducted with these indicators revealed a single component structure, with component loadings ranging between 0.91 and 0.96. Based on this pattern, we created the socio-ecological roots of honour index (see Table 1 and Figure 2 for how this index was distributed in the world across countries for which data was available) by taking the average of the reversed scores of three indicators (α = .87) with higher scores indicating stronger socio-ecological roots of honour in a given country (range = 0–1). For a robustness check, we also conducted analyses for each country index separately; however, the overall pattern did not vary (see Tables S1–S3).

Table 1.

Countries’ Socio-Ecological Roots of Honour Scores.

Country	Socio-ecological roots of honour scores
Venezuela	0.644
Pakistan	0.641
Bangladesh	0.62
Zimbabwe	0.618
Egypt	0.577
Myanmar	0.567
Bolivia	0.555
Nicaragua	0.553
Nigeria	0.549
Ethiopia	0.543
Guatemala	0.53
Kenya	0.52
Philippines	0.501
Mexico	0.483
Peru	0.475
Colombia	0.469
Brazil	0.46
Morocco	0.456
Lebanon	0.444
China	0.442
Kyrgyzstan	0.44
Turkey	0.434
Indonesia	0.433
Iran	0.403
Ecuador	0.402
Tunisia	0.396
Thailand	0.395
Ukraine	0.391
Vietnam	0.384
Jordan	0.357
Romania	0.346
Serbia	0.342
Russia	0.335
Mongolia	0.33
Chile	0.32
Argentina	0.301
Kazakhstan	0.297
United States	0.253
Malaysia	0.245
Greece	0.221
New Zealand	0.153
Australia	0.15
South Korea	0.149
Hong Kong	0.125
Canada	0.116
Japan	0.114
Germany	0.102
Netherlands	0.099
Singapore	0.095

Note. Socio-ecological roots of honour scores are calculated based on three socio-ecological indicators of honour cultures (rule of law, national income per capita, and equal distribution of resources). Higher scores represent stronger socio-ecological roots of honour.

Figure 2.

Socio-ecological roots of honour index.

Dependent (Level-1) Variable

Our outcome variable, Justification of Violence, was measured by three items worded as follows: “Please tell me for each of the following actions whether you think it can always be justified, never be justified, or something in between: for a man to beat his wife; parents beating children, and violence against other people” (α = .73; 1 = never justifiable to 10 = always justifiable). The mean levels of the items indicated a floor effect; we therefore recoded the items as binary by recording the response scale as follows: 0 = non-justifiable (representing a rating of 1 on the original scale) and 1 = justifiable (representing ratings from 2 to 10 on the original scale) and constructed a composite score ranging between 0 and 3 using the three binary items. We also ran the analysis for robustness check using the raw data of the justification of violence (see Tables S4–S8).

Analytical Strategy

We conducted a multi-level model with individuals (Level-1) nested within countries (Level-2) using the GAMLj module (Gallucci, 2020) of jamovi statistical software (The jamovi project, 2022)³ and employing a restricted maximum likelihood model for estimation. First, we added individual-level predictors (precarity and frequency of crime) to the models, followed by the country-level variable (socio-ecological roots of honour index). Finally, we entered the cross-level interactions into the model to examine the moderating role of socio-ecological roots of honour in the relationship between (a) precarity and justification of violence and (b) frequency of crime witnessing and justification of violence.

Results

As demonstrated by zero-order correlations between the study variables reported in Table 2, greater precarity and frequency of crime were correlated significantly and positively with stronger justification of violence. Precarity and frequency of crime were also positively and significantly correlated. Cross-level correlations showed that greater precarity and frequency of crime were significantly and positively associated with countries’ socio-ecological roots of honour.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables.

Variables	M (SD)	1	2	3	4
1. Justification of Violence	1.06 (1.16)	—	.11***	.10***	.08***
2. Precarity	1.68 (0.78)		—	.29***	.37***
3. Frequency of Crime	1.78 (0.74)			—	.17***
4. Socio-Ecological Roots of Honour	0.41 (0.17)				—

Note. Response scales: Justification of Violence = 0–3; Precarity = 1–4; Frequency of crime witnessing = 1–4; Countries’ Socio-Ecological Roots of Honour = 0–1.

***

p < .001.

Next, we run the null model with no predictors to determine whether the justification of violence varies across countries, hence, whether the data allow us to conduct multi-level modelling. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) is calculated by dividing the variance at the higher level (between-group variance) by the total variance. An ICC greater than 0 means between-group variation. Although there are no universal cutpoints for ICC level that show enough between-group variation to conduct multi-level modelling, conservatively, the multilevel modelling is suggested if the ICC is above 0.10. Our null model (ICC = 0.175; AIC = 256,407) suggests that there is enough variation between countries that needs to be modelled. Then, we conducted a multi-level modelling to test whether (a) precarity and frequency of crime would predict justification of violence, and (b) countries’ socio-ecological roots of honour would moderate these relationships. All Level-1 predictors were centred. We tested whether random slopes for individual-level predictors (precarity and crime witnessing) varied significantly across countries using likelihood ratio tests (LRT) in the GAMLj module of jamovi. Although the differences were significant, the results showed that allowing random slopes did not significantly improve model fit compared with the random-intercept-only model (AIC_intercept = 237,844 vs. AIC_precarity = 224,678 and AIC_crime = 224,632). Therefore, we retained the random-intercept model, which parsimoniously represents between-country variability in the outcome without overparameterisation.

As shown in Table 3, the fixed effects of individual-level predictors that were obtained in our multi-level mixed model analysis showed that greater precarity (b = 0.13, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [0.11, 0.14]) and frequency of crime witnessing (b = 0.11, SE = 0.01 [0.10, 0.12]) predicted stronger justification of violence. We also test the models by including the participant’s gender. Across all models, men justified violence more than women. Although gender predicted violence justification at least as much as other individual variables, it did not interact with Level-1 and Level-2 predictors in explaining violence justification. That means, although adding gender to the models slightly decreases the effect size of the Level-1 predictors, the results did not change overall (see Table S11).

Table 3.

Fixed Effects Parameter Estimates for Model 1.

Variables	Estimate	SE	95% Confidence interval		df	t	p
Variables	Estimate	SE	Lower	Upper	df	t	p
(Intercept)	1.071	0.064	0.944	1.197	56.0	16.6	<.001
Precarity	0.126	0.006	0.115	0.137	75,925.1	21.9	<.001
Frequency of crime	0.109	0.006	0.097	0.120	75,929.7	18.3	<.001
Variance	0.236
ICC	0.173
AIC	225,178

Note. N_country = 57, N_participants = 75,933.

In the next step, we added the macro-level predictor (socio-ecological roots of honour index) to the model. Countries’ socio-ecological roots of honour did not predict justification of violence directly (b = 0.29, SE = 0.40, 95% CI [−0.49, 1.06]); precarity and frequency of crime remained as significant positive predictors (Table 4).

Table 4.

Fixed Effects Parameter Estimates for Model 2.

Variables	Estimate	SE	95% Confidence interval		df	t	p
Variables	Estimate	SE	Lower	Upper	df	t	p
(Intercept)	1.079	0.063	0.955	1.201	45.0	17.0	<.001
Precarity	0.135	0.006	0.123	0.148	65,348.5	21.5	<.001
Frequency of crime	0.106	0.006	0.093	0.118	65,349.3	16.6	<.001
Socio-ecological roots of honour	0.286	0.395	−0.488	1.061	45.1	0.7	.473
Variance	0.186
ICC	0.138
AIC	195,398

Note. N for country = 47, N for participants = 65,354.

Finally, we examined countries’ socio-ecological roots of honour as a moderator in the relationship between precarity and frequency of crime witnessing on the one hand and justification of violence on the other. Both cross-level interactions (country-level socio-ecological roots of honour × individual-level precarity and country-level socio-ecological roots of honour × individual-level frequency of crime witnessing) were significant (b = −0.48 and b = −0.27 respectively, see Table 5).

Table 5.

Fixed Effects Parameter Estimates for Model 3.

Names	Estimate	SE	95% Confidence interval		df	t	p
Names	Estimate	SE	Lower	Upper	df	t	p
(Intercept)	1.110	0.063	0.988	1.223	45.1	17.8	<.001
Level 1
Precarity	0.153	0.007	0.140	0.165	65,339.3	23.4	<.001
Frequency of crime	0.107	0.006	0.094	0.120	65,344.4	16.6	<.001
Level 2
Socio-ecological roots of honour	0.230	0.39	−0.534	0.995	45.1	0.6	.588
Level 1 × Level 2
Precarity × Socio-ecological roots of honour	−0.482	0.041	−0.563	−0.402	65,283.6	−11.8	<.001
Frequency of crime × Socio-ecological roots of honour	−0.273	0.040	−0.352	−0.194	65,347.5	−6.8	<.001
Variance	0.180
ICC	0.135
AIC	195,159

Note. N_country = 47, N_participants = 65,354.

Simple slope analyses conducted to unfold these significant interaction effects showed that the positive relationship between precarity and justification of violence was stronger in countries with weak socio-ecological roots of honour (b = 0.23, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [0.21, 0.25]) compared to countries with strong socio-ecological roots of honour (b = 0.07, SE = 0.01 [0.06, 0.09]; see Table 6). As shown in Figure 3, justification of violence was stronger in countries with strong (vs. weak) socio-ecological roots of honour when precarity was low. However, when precarity was higher, violence justification was stronger in countries with weak (vs. strong) socio-ecological roots of honour. In other words, for countries with strong socio-ecological roots of honour, the slope tends to be flatter; hence, although the effect is still significant, the effect size is negligible. However, for countries with weak socio-ecological roots of honour, the slope suggested important variation between low and high levels of precarity.

Figure 3.

Relationship between precarity and justification of violence for different degrees of country-level socio-ecological roots of honour.

A similar pattern emerged when we unfolded the interaction effect between countries’ socio-ecological roots of honour and frequency of crime on violence justification. The positive relationship between the frequency of crime and justification of violence was stronger in countries with weak socio-ecological roots of honour (b = 0.15, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [0.13, 0.17]) compared with countries with strong socio-ecological roots of honour (b = 0.06, SE = 0.01 CI [0.04, 0.08]; see Table 7). As shown in Figure 4, justification of violence was higher in countries with strong socio-ecological roots of honour when the frequency of crime was low. However, when the frequency of crime was higher, justification of violence was stronger in countries with weak (vs. strong) socio-ecological roots of honour. In other words, similar to precarity, the slopes suggested that the effect size of crime witnessing on violence justification in countries with strong socio-ecological roots of honour is negligible, while crime witnessing predicted stronger violence justification in countries with weak socio-ecological roots of honour. Both patterns held and all results were replicable when we ran the analyses with the raw data of justification of violence (see Tables S9–S10).

Table 6.

Simple Slope Analysis (Precarity × Countries’ Socio-Ecological Roots of Honour).

Moderator levels	Estimate	SE	95% Confidence interval		z	p
Country-LevelSocio-Ecological Roots of Honour	Estimate	SE	Lower	Upper	z	p
Strong	0.072	0.008	0.056	0.088	8.93	<.001
Moderate	0.152	0.007	0.140	0.165	23.45	<.001
Weak	0.233	0.011	0.212	0.254	22.02	<.001

Note. This table shows the strength of the relationship between precarity and justification of violence (estimates) for different levels of socio-ecological roots of honour of countries. Weak = one standard deviation below the mean; moderate = mean; strong = one standard deviation above the mean.

Table 7.

Simple Slope Analysis (Inadequate Law Enforcement × Countries’ Socio-Ecological Roots of Honour).

Moderator levels	Estimate	SE	95% Confidence interval		z	p
Country-LevelSocio-Ecological Honour Orientation	Estimate	SE	Lower	Upper	z	p
Strong	0.061	0.008	0.045	0.078	7.23	<.001
Moderate	0.107	0.006	0.094	0.120	16.56	<.001
Weak	0.153	0.010	0.133	0.172	15.16	<.001

Note. This table shows the strength of the relationship between frequency of crime and justification of violence (estimates) for different levels of socio-ecological roots of honour. Weak = one standard deviation below the mean; moderate = mean; strong = one standard deviation above the mean.

Figure 4.

Relationship between perceived frequency of crime and justification of violence for different levels of socio-ecological honour orientation.

Results showed that not only country-level socio-ecological facilitators of honour, as shown by previous studies (Altheimer, 2012; Cohen, 1996; Messner et al., 2005), but also how individuals experience these macro-level conditions at a personal level seem to matter for violence justification. Specifically, we found that individual-level higher precarity and crime witnessing predicted stronger justification of violence. On average, people who live in countries with weak socio-ecological roots of honour (e.g., strong rule of law, higher national income, and more equally distributed resources) were less likely to show justification of violence, compared to those who live in strong socio-ecological roots of honour. However, personal experiences of these socio-ecological conditions, for instance, economic precarity and crime witnessing, lead to a more complex interplay. People who live in countries with weak socio-ecological roots of honour, but individually experience stronger economic precarity and more frequent crime witnessing, are more likely to show stronger justification of violence compared to those who experience the same things in strong socio-ecological roots of honour.

Discussion

In the current study, we examined the role of individuals’ personal experiences of precarity and frequency of crime witnessing in violence justification in countries with varying levels of socio-ecological roots of honour, calculated using indices that served as proxies for resource scarcity and inadequate law enforcement. Although the role of resource scarcity and inadequate law enforcement in the emergence and maintenance of cultures of honour and associated rates of violence has been well-established (see Brown & Osterman, 2012; Nisbett, 1993; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996, for review see Uskul & Cross, 2020), studies designed to examine this relationship at the individual level (in conjunction with country-level conditions) focusing on individuals’ personal experience of precarity and frequency of crime was, to our knowledge, missing.

We did not find a direct association between country’s socio-ecological roots of honour scores and individual justification of violence. This might seem to contradict prior research (e.g., Barnes et al., 2012; Brown & Osterman, 2012; Cohen & Nisbett, 1994; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996), which has indicated that individuals in countries with strong socio-ecological roots of honour are more likely to justify violence compared to those in countries with weak socio-ecological roots of honour. However, moderation analyses showed that the role of the individual’s own experience of precarity and crime witnessing in violence justification was contingent upon the country’s socio-ecological roots of honour. The slope analyses suggested that in countries with strong socio-ecological roots of honour, the role of individual experience of precarity and crime on violence justification is negligible. Yet, in the countries with weak socio-ecological roots of honour, slopes show an increase in violence justification scores for higher scores of precarity and crime witnessing; hence, they predicted violence justification in these countries.

Why did precarity and crime witnessing have no to little effect on violence justification in countries with strong socio-ecological roots of honour? Justification of violence among individuals in honour-oriented cultures may be less responsive to personal experiences of precarity and crime, as cultural norms prescribing violence against honour threats may already be deeply ingrained in these societies. Individuals residing in countries with strong socio-ecological roots of honour may be accustomed to high levels of economic precarity and crime at the national level and thus not exhibit a substantial shift in their attitudes towards or internalisation of specific aggressive behaviours as a function of their individual experiences of precarity and neighbourhood crime. Conversely, in countries with weak socio-ecological roots of honour, social comparison could be one of the primary mechanisms for people’s reactions to their adverse experiences, as individuals may perceive their personal experiences of precarity and crime as more unfair leading to a heightened sense of injustice and a feeling of being left behind, especially when compared to those living in conditions of less precarity and experiencing better standards of law enforcement within the same country which may then translate into stronger justification of violence (see Gerber et al., 2018; Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Our findings situate individuals’ own experiences within existing socio-ecological conditions that have been shown to act as precursors of cultures of honour. This aligns with recent approaches that focus on cultural fit between societal norms or values and individual-level experiences (e.g., Kirchner-Häusler et al., 2023; Uysal et al., 2026; Wu et al., 2021; Yoo & Miyamoto, 2018). Going beyond this literature, current findings also contribute to insights from other social sciences on the mismatch between citizens’ experiences and their country’s conditions. For example, one recent study demonstrated that citizens of countries that become more unequal as their economy grows report being less happy (Bartram, 2022). Our findings are also relevant for the cultural backlash hypothesis, which argues that the rise of extremist authoritarian populism in liberal democratic societies stems from the fact that those who feel precarious due to economic and socio-political decline in their circumstances, which is not shared by all groups (Norris & Inglehart, 2019). Finally, current findings contribute to the literature on the relationship between precarity and violence that has employed theoretical frameworks other than the one used in the current research (e.g., Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, 2016; Heimer, 1997).

Despite the contributions, several limitations warrant consideration. First, we used a proxy variable that reflects the ecology of honour, rather than a measure of honour endorsement (e.g., Uysal et al., 2026). Therefore, these findings should not be conflated with those concerning the relationship between individual honour endorsement and justification of violence. Second, our research focused exclusively on honour ecology and its socio-ecological foundations of honour cultures; future studies could examine the interplay between cultural values and socio-ecological context across other forms of cultural logics, such as face and dignity. Third, our alternative model tests showed that gender substantially predicted the justification of violence. Although we acknowledge that effect sizes of binary variables can sometimes be artificially inflated in such models, the effect size of gender was not negligible and was comparable to that of precarity and crime witnessing. While this study did not focus on the gendered dimensions of honour and violence justification, our findings suggest that gender may be as influential as, if not more than, these socio-ecological factors (see Gul & Schuster, 2020; Uysal et al., 2021).

Moreover, future research is needed to shed light on the psychological mechanisms underlying stronger or weaker justification of violence, beyond socio-ecological factors and their individual-level representations. It is also important to highlight that our findings are based on cross-sectional data. Experimental and longitudinal studies conducted with a comparative design are needed to establish the causal relationship between socio-ecological antecedents of honour cultures and violence justification.

Finally, this study did not distinguish between absolute and relative resource scarcity (see Baumgärtner et al., 2006; Roux et al., 2015). At the individual level, our precarity measure reflected absolute scarcity (i.e., “in the last 12 months, how often have you or your family gone without ‘enough food to eat’, ‘medicine or medical treatment that you need’, and ‘a cash income”). At the country-level, we included both absolute (i.e., UNDP Income Index) and relative (i.e., Equal Distribution of Resources) indicators of resource scarcity as part of the socio-ecological roots of honour. Given that absolute and relative resource scarcity might play a differential role in the justification of violence, future studies should examine whether it is absolute, relative, or both types of resource scarcity that matter for individuals’ justifications of violence. Moreover, studies suggest that individuals’ subjective perceptions of their economic position or resources can diverge meaningfully from objective indicators (e.g., Anderson et al., 2012), and these perceptions may play a crucial role in shaping moral and cultural orientations.

Conclusion

Our study reveals interactions between personal and cultural aspects of the socio-ecology of honour cultures. Specifically, we found that individual experiences of precarity and crime witnessing are associated with stronger justification of violence, whereas this was contingent upon the country’s socio-ecological roots of honour. While in countries with strong socio-ecological roots of honour (i.e., scarce resources and ineffective law enforcement), the role of precarity and crime in violence justification is negligible, in countries with weak socio-ecological honour roots, they predicted violence justification. In countries where individuals may feel a heightened sense of injustice and vulnerability due to incompatibility between individual experiences and cultural context, individual experiences of precarity and crime were associated with stronger violence justification Conversely, in countries with strong socio-ecological roots of honour, justification of violence appears not sensitive to personal experiences, indicating that deeply ingrained cultural norms may overshadow individual adversities such as precarity and crime witnessing in shaping attitudes toward violence. These findings highlight the value of examining individual experiences within broader socio-ecological frameworks using multi-level approaches.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jcc-10.1177_00220221261431329 – Supplemental material for A Socio-Ecological and Multilevel Approach to the Role of Honour Cultures on Violence Justification: Resource Scarcity and Ineffective Law Enforcement

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jcc-10.1177_00220221261431329 for A Socio-Ecological and Multilevel Approach to the Role of Honour Cultures on Violence Justification: Resource Scarcity and Ineffective Law Enforcement by Mete Sefa Uysal and Ayse K. Uskul in Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study was supported by the British Academy Newton International Fellowship.

ORCID iDs

Mete Sefa Uysal

Ayse K. Uskul

Data Availability Statement

The raw data can be accessed on the Open Science Framework (OSF) webpage ().

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Altheimer

(2012). Cultural processes and homicide across nations. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(7), 842–863. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12438756

Anderson

Kraus

M. W.

Galinsky

A. D.

Keltner

(2012). The local-ladder effect: Social status and subjective well-being. Psychological Science, 23(7), 764–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611434537

Ashokkumar

Swann

W. B.

(2023). Restoring honor by slapping or disowning the daughter. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(6), 823–836 https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221079106

Ayers

E. L.

(1991). Legacy of violence. American Heritage, 42, 102–110. http://www.americanheritage.com/content/legacy-violence

Baller

R. D.

Zevenbergen

M. P.

Messner

S. F.

(2009). The heritage of herding and Southern homicide: Examining the ecological foundations of the code of honor thesis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46(3), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427809335164

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212443383

Baron

Straus

M. A.

(1989). Rape and its relation to social disorganization, pornography and inequality in the USA. Medicine and Law, 8(3), 209–232.

Bartram

(2022). Does inequality enhance life satisfaction? - A longitudinal investigation. Policy Commons. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/2324973/inequality-ls/3085501/

Baumgärtner

Becker

Faber

Manstetten

(2006). Relative and absolute scarcity of nature. Assessing the roles of economics and ecology for biodiversity conservation. Ecological Economics, 59(4), 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.012

10.

Brown

R. B.

(2016). Honor bound: How a cultural ideal has shaped the American Psyche. Oxford University Press.

11.

Brown

R. P.

Osterman

L. L.

(2012). Culture of honor, violence, and homicide. In Shackelford

T. K.

Weekes-Shackelford

V. A.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary perspectives on violence, homicide, and war (pp. 218–232). Oxford University Press.

12.

Cihangir

(2013). Gender specific honor codes and cultural change. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(3), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212463453

13.

Cohen

(1996). Law, social policy, and violence: The impact of regional cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 961–978. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.961

14.

Cohen

(1998). Culture, social organization, and patterns of violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.408

15.

Cohen

Hernandez

Gruschow

Nowak

Gelfard

Borkowski

(2018). Rationally irrational? The ecologies and economics of honor. In Üskül

Oishi

(Eds.), Socio-economic environment and human psychology: Social, ecological, and cultural perspectives (pp. 77–102). Oxford University Press.

16.

Cohen

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

17.

Cohen

Nisbett

R. E.

(1997). Field experiments examining the culture of honor: The role of institutions in perpetuating norms about violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1188–1199. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972311006

18.

Cohen

Nisbett

R. E.

Bowdle

B. F.

Schwarz

(1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An “experimental ethnography.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 945–960. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.945

19.

Cross

S. E.

Uskul

A. K.

Gerçek-Swing

Sunbay

Alözkan

Günsoy

Ataca

Karakitapoğlu-Aygün

(2013). Cultural prototypes and dimensions of honor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2), 232–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213510323

20.

Gallucci

. (2020). GAMLj Suite for Jamovi. https://github.com/gamlj/gamlj

21.

Gerber

J. P.

Wheeler

Suls

(2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000127

22.

Greitemeyer

Sagioglou

(2016). Subjective socioeconomic status causes aggression: A test of the theory of social deprivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(2), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000058

23.

Grosjean

(2014). A history of violence: The culture of honor and homicide in the US South. Journal of the European Economic Association, 12(5), 1285–1316. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12096

24.

Gul

Schuster

. (2020). Judgments of marital rape as a function of honor culture, masculine reputation threat, and observer gender: A cross-cultural comparison between Turkey, Germany, and the UK. Aggressive Behavior, 46(4), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21893

25.

Günsoy

Olcaysoy Okten

Demaske

(2024). Rude or just blunt? Honor, dignity, and spontaneous trait inferences from potentially offensive behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 113, Article 104617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104617

26.

Haerpfer

Inglehart

Moreno

Welzel

Kizilova

Diez-Medrano

Lagos

Norris

Ponarin

Puranen

(Eds.). (2022). World Values Survey: Round Seven - Country-Pooled Datafile Version 5.0. JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.14281/18241.20

27.

Heimer

(1997). Socioeconomic status, subcultural definitions, and violent delinquency. Social Forces, 75(3), 799–833. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580520

28.

Henry

P. J.

(2009). Low-status compensation: A theory for understanding the role of status in cultures of honor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015476

29.

Jin

Romano

Vignoles

V. L.

Cross

S. E.

Yalçın

M. G.

Harb

Husnu

Ishii

Karamaouna

Kafetsios

Kateri

Miniesy

Pagliaro

Psaltis

Rabie

Teresi

Uchida

Uskul

A. K.

(2025). Honour, competition and cooperation across 13 societies. Nature Human Behaviour, 10, 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02308-0

30.

Kirchner-Häusler

De Leersnyder

Uskul

A. K.

Mirzada

Vignoles

V. L.

Rodríguez-Bailón

Castillo

V. A.

Cross

S. E.

Gezici-Yalçın

Harb

Husnu

Ishii

Karamaouna

Kafetsios

Kateri

Matamoros-Lima

Miniesy

Özkan

, . . . Uchida

(2023). Cultural fit of emotions and subjective well-being: Replicating comparative evidence and extending it to the Mediterranean region. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 5, Article 100171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2023.100171

31.

Leung

A. K.-Y.

Cohen

(2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022151

32.

McWhiney

(1988). Cracker culture: Celtic ways in the old south. University of Alabama Press.

33.

Messner

S. F.

Baller

R. D.

Zevenbergen

M. P

. (2005). The legacy of lynching and southern homicide. American Sociological Review, 70(4), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000405

34.

Nisbett

R. E.

(1993). Violence and U.S. regional culture. American Psychologist, 48(4), 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.4.441

35.

Nisbett

R. E.

Cohen

(1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South. Westview Press.

36.

Norris

Inglehart

(2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.

37.

Nowak

Gelfand

M. J.

Borkowski

Cohen

Hernandez

(2016). The Evolutionary basis of honor cultures. Psychological Science, 27(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615602860

38.

Roux

Goldsmith

Bonezzi

(2015). On the psychology of scarcity: When reminders of resource scarcity promote selfish (and generous) behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(4), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv048

39.

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), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12262

40.

Tajfel

(1978). The achievement of inter-group differentiation. In Tajfel

(Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 77–100). Academic Press.

41.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of inter-group relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

42.

UNDP. (2018). Human development indices and indicators: 2018 statistical update. https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/2018humandevelopmentstatisticalupdatepdf.pdf

43.

Uskul

A. K.

Cross

S. E.

(2019). The social and cultural psychology of honour: What have we learned from researching honour in Turkey? European Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 39–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1542903

44.

Uskul

A. K.

Cross

S. E.

(2020). Socio-ecological roots of cultures of honor. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 177–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.11.001

45.

Uskul

A. K.

Cross

S. E.

Günsoy

(2023). The role of honour in interpersonal, intrapersonal and intergroup processes. S ocial and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(1), Article e12719. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12719

46.

Uskul

A. K.

Cross

S. E.

Günsoy

Gul

(2019). Cultures of honor. In Cohen

Kitayama

(Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (2nd ed., pp. 793–821). The Guilford Press.

47.

Uskul

A. K.

Cross

S. E.

Gunsoy

Gercek-Swing

Alozkan

Ataca

(2015). A price to pay: Turkish and American retaliation for threats to personal and family honor Aggressive Behavior, 41, 594–607. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21598

48.

Uskul

A. K.

Cross

S. E.

Sunbay

Gercek-Swing

Ataca

(2012). Honor bound: The cultural construction of honor in Turkey and the Northern United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(7), 1131–1151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111422258

49.

Uskul

A. K.

Kirchner-Häusler

Vignoles

V. L.

Rodriguez-Bailón

Castillo

V. A.

Cross

S. E.

Yalçın

M. G.

Harb

Husnu

Ishii

Jin

Karamaouna

Kafetsios

Kateri

Matamoros-Lima

Liu

Miniesy

Özkan

. . . Uchida

. (2023). Neither Eastern nor Western: Patterns of independence and interdependence in Mediterranean societies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(3), 471–495. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000342

50.

Uysal

M. S.

Kessler

Uskul

A. K.

(2026). Honour across borders: How cultural norms shape prejudice confrontation in migration contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 65(1), Article e70034. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.70034

51.

Uysal

M. S.

Üzümçeker

Boyacıoğlu

İ.

(2021). Supporting capital punishment for rape offenders as a collective retaliation against honour threat. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 31(3), 354–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2505

52.

van Osch

Breugelmans

S. M.

Zeelenberg

Bölük

. (2013). A different kind of honor culture: Family honor and aggression in Turks. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(3), 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212467475

53.

Vandello

J. A.

Cohen

(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

54.

Vandello

J. A.

Cohen

Grandon

Franiuk

(2009). Stand by your man: Indirect prescriptions for honorable violence and feminine loyalty in Canada, Chile, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(1), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022108326194

55.

Vignoles

V. L.

Kirchner-Häusler

Uskul

A. K.

Cross

S. E.

Uchida

Rodriguez-Bailón

Bossom

I. R. L.

Castillo

V. A.

Gezici Yalçın

Harb

Husnu

Ishii

Karamaouna

Kafetsios

Kateri

Matamoros Lima

Miniesy

, . . . Wohl

M. J. A.

(2024). Are Mediterranean societies ‘cultures of honor’? Prevalence and implications of a cultural logic of honor across three world regions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241295500

56.

D. C.

Kim

H. S.

Collins

N. L.

(2021). Perceived responsiveness across cultures: The role of cultural fit in social support use. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(9), Article e12634. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12634

57.

Wyatt-Brown

(1982). Southern honor: Ethics and behavior in the old South. Oxford University Press.

58.

Wyatt-Brown

(1986). Honor and violence in the old South. Oxford University Press.

59.

Yoo

Miyamoto

(2018). Cultural fit of emotions and health implications: A psychosocial resources model. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(2), Article e12372. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12372

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB