Honor Scale in Romania: Psychometric Parameters and Associations to Human Values

Abstract

Honor is an important psychological construct that refers to one’s worth in one’s own eyes and in the eyes of others. A person's honor is dependent on implicit personal meaning, which leads the individual to behave in a way worthy of being valued and socially appreciated. In the present research, we aimed to provide psychometric evidence for the short version of the Honor Scale in the Romanian context. For that, one study was performed (N = 444). The four-dimensional structure of the measure was supported through Confirmatory Factor Analysis, and showed good reliability estimates. The measure also presented full factorial invariance across participants' gender, showing that these groups answer to the measure in a similar way and can be further compared in research. Finally, results indicated significant associations between the Honor Scale factors with human values and age. In sum, our findings suggest that the short version of the Honor Scale is psychometrically adequate to use in Romania.

Keywords

Honor validation human values Romania

Introduction

Around the world, cultures vary on multiple factors that can have influence our behaviors, beliefs, and values. One of these factors of cultural variation concerns the ideology of honor (Brown, 2016; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996). The cultures that are honor-oriented are defined by lawless and economically insecure environments where people feel the need to solve social problems themselves rather than rely on any outside authority (Brown et al., 2009; Nowak et al., 2016). The central feature honored cultures involves the preservation of reputation (both personal and collective). In these cultures people are expected to do anything to maintain their reputations. In these countries, men aim to develop and keep reputations of strength, bravery, and an intolerance for disrespect (Cohen & Nisbett, 1994), whereas women tend to build and defend reputations for loyalty and sexual purity (Vandello & Cohen, 2003). If people live up to these cultural expectations, they present honor. However, if they ever fail, they experience dishonor (Osterman & Brown, 2011).

Romania have been passing through dysfunctional political and economic changes over the past decades, which make their population to seek for the maintenance of their reputation. That is, the amount of social acceptance and status a person has in a community (Hogan & Blickle, 2017), which reflects a person’s past behavior and is one of the best data sources for predicting most aspects of social performance. When assessing Hofstede’s research, Romania shows higher collectivistic characteristics and higher preference for avoiding uncertainty. That is, Romanians tend to be part of social groups and take responsibility for their members, maintaining rigid rules and norms, and conservative attitudes in the relationships with others. Moreover, Gavreliuc (2011b, 2012a, 2012b); Gavreliuc and Ciobotă (2013); Gavreliuc and Gavreliuc (2012) coordinated a set of intercultural research that provide important information regarding the specificity of Romania. These studies revealed an ambivalent portrait in terms of cultural dimensions, both collectivistic and individualistic, being characterized as an “autarchic individualism” (Gavreliuc, 2009, 2011a). Other researchers in the Romanian social context, such as Voicu et al. (2001, 2005, 2007), investigated the social values among Romanians, using the WVS methodology (Inglehart, 1997). Their findings showed that Romania is a case of a strong cultural inertia of value orientation compared with other national cultures. These reports demonstrate the absence of significant changes in the last decade as well as a persistence of a high average score on conservative values over the last two decades (Voicu & Telegdy, 2016). Based on such findings, the present research aims to better understand honor in Romania, besides validating the Honor Scale for the context.

Human values

Human values have a strong association with honor (Guerra et al., 2013). Values are frequently defined as guiding principles in our life (Gouveia et al., 2014; Schwartz, 1992), and have been an important concept in social sciences since their development. They have been linked to a range of variables, such as need for cognition (Coelho et al., 2018), personality traits (Parks-Leduc et al., 2015), and age (Gouveia et al., 2015). Values are used to describe groups, cultures, societies and individuals, keeping track of modifications that can occur across time in a context, besides explainingattitudinal and behavioral motivations. Values are the mental representations of the important purposes and motivations people have and through which they communicate to coordinate their behavior (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987).

The work of Dahlsgaard et al. (2005) give us a base about how values influence honor. The authors point out six core virtues that help to shape valued human strengths across cultures. These were found consistently across different philosophical and religious writings in different countries (e.g., Confucianism and Taoism, China; Buddhism and Hinduism, South Asia). These are: (a) Courage (e.g., perseverance, bravery), (2) justice (e.g., leadership, fairness), (3) humanity (e.g., love, kindness), (4) temperance (e.g., humility, self-control), (5) wisdom (e.g., curiosity, creativity), and (6) transcendence (e.g., gratitude, hope). Such characteristics are important to a better understanding of the role of human values in leading people and society to more fully embrace their shared humanity and to further understand their influence on our honor levels.

Most of the research published about human values relies on Schwartz’s (1992) theory. In Romania, studies using Schwartz’s model revealed that the most prominent values in the context are those from conservational motivations (e.g., tradition, security, conformity), suggesting that the country is one of the most traditional and conformist, in comparison to other European states (Gavreliuc, 2011; Voicu & Voicu, 2007). For openness to change values (e.g., hedonism, stimulation), Romanians have achieved lower scores when compared with other countries. Such results presented the Romanian cultural context as based on the need for survival rather than development. These studies signal the prevalence of conservative values and modest scores with the dimensions of affective autonomy and intellectual autonomy (Gavreliuc, 2011; Voicu & Voicu, 2007).

Using the Functional Theory of Human Values (Gouveia et al., 2014), Pascalau and Gavreliuc (2018) found a specific profile of values in the Romanian cultural context. Values are ordered according to the purposes of the social actor - personal, central and social on the one hand and on the other hand they are shaped predominantly on the basis of the needs of prosperity and less on the basis of those of survival (Pascalau & Gavreliuc, 2018). As we noted, people are motivated by needs for: attention, approval, and acceptance; status, power, and the control of resources; and predictability and order in their everyday lives.

These individual differences needs are explained by the socio analytic theory that claims that the core features of personality are identity and reputation (Hogan & Bickle, 2017). Identity and reputation are guided by a set of unconscious influences on human behavior such as values, norms or customs of a culture which people assume that these are true. Values are a core component of the personality that influence the behavior of social actors, and motivate them to seek for a good reputation in front of others.

Honor as a psychological construct

Honor is an important psychological construct in defining the self-image of the individual. Every culture specific traits and behaviors will help to define what is undestanded as “honorable”. Some honored cultures attribute extra attention to the importance of reputation as a crucial characteristic of individual\collective identity (Nisbett, 1993; Peristiany, 1966). In these countries, reputations are linked to social acceptance and status.

Pitt-Rivers (2001) suggests three basic functions that cover the “honor code”: (1) it guides one’s discernment and moral assessment of others; (2) it impact people’s actions before society; and (3) it is a way of assessing social status. Therefore, honor defines self-image and, at the same time, is the moral representation of a person's worth in a cultural context. Still, honor is a defining element for the identity of a social group, being manifested in the interactions of the members of a group. Honor works as a link between the ideals of a cultural context and their projection on the personal dimension of an individual (Pitt-Rivers, 1966). Blincoe and Harris (2011) suggest that we perceive the social image we have according to how othersbehave towards us, whether respectfully or disrespectfully. These behaviors are associated with our sense of inclusion in a group and with the status we have on it.

Another perspective on honor is the societal one. Members of a specific nation may have diverse perception of their own culture, given the existence of sub-cultural groups, as well as the variability of individual personal life experience. Honor culture gives emphasis to the need to establish and defend the virtue and honor of oneself and one’s group (Smith et al., 2017).

Honor in social psychology

In social psychology, honor is studied as a concept that guides emotional and behavioral reactions differently in diverse culture. One common definition is that honor refers to “one’s worth in one’s own eyes and in the eyes of others” (Mosquera et al., 2002a). The link between individual’s worth with social image is stronger in contexts that follow honor codes, such as Romania. Honor is enhanced by a good reputation in the community and of the family the person belongs, by social independence, and by the respect to gender related honor codes (Gilmore, 1987, 1990; Gilmore & Gwynne, 1985; Vassiliou & Vassiliou, 1973). A person's honor is dependent on implicit personal meaning, which leads the individual to behave in a way worthy of being valued and socially appreciated.

Research has shown the association of honor with several social behaviors, especially those with an anti-social nature, as for instance, delinquency, and crimes such as murder (Henry, 2009), robbery and insult (IJzerman et al., 2007), and violence (D'Souza et al., 2016). Significant relations with other variables were also found, such as emotional reactions to offences, insults (Mosquera et al., 2002a), anger and shame (Mosquera et al., 2000).

Mosquera et al. (2004) point out that within honored cultures, individuals avoid dishonor in social interactions by simply following to an honor code. According to the authors, the honor codes are defined through a set of normative values that function as standards for what is honorable or dishonorable in a specific society. Thus, Mosquera et al. (2002a) proposed four distinct variants of honor as a psychological construct:

Family honor

This dimension assigns to each member of the family system the duty to behave in a way that do not dishonor the family and in the same time the respect for the normative standards for properly behavior that will conduct to honoring the family system. Respecting and protecting the family name is an important part of defining a person's reputation (Mosquera et al., 2002a).

Social honor

Also known as social integrity, it refers to the honesty of the individual and the proper behavior s\he decided to have in social life. Integrity is the personal image of being trustworthy in your social group and the extent to which the person is loyal to his/her own principles and principles of the group to which he/she belongs (Guerra et al., 2013).

Masculine honor

This dimension designates the reputation of a person asserting a male assertive role, defined by: the difficulty of working, the existence and support of their own family, the maintenance of sexual relations and the dignified defense of the family in offence situations insult (Mosquera et al., 2002a; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996). The male honor in specialized studies has been identified as a powerful predictor of crimes and violent behaviors (Nisbett & Cohen, 1996).

Feminine honor

This dimension from the perspective of the traditional gender role has been associated with features such as modesty and chastity. An inappropriate behavior of the woman could lead to dishonoring the family and the man, so the proper behavior was necessary for the integrity and reputation of the family (Mosquera et al., 2002b).

Both masculine and feminine honor are significantly associated with traditional attitudes towards sex roles (Rodrigues, 2011).

These dimensions are evaluated through the Honor Scale (HS), an instrument developed by Mosquera et al. (2002a, 2002b), originally composed by 25 items. Guerra et al. (2013) further suggested a shorter version of the HS, with 16 items equally distributed among the four dimensions. The authors offered evidence of HS construct validity and of the multifactor model of honor concerns. The structure was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis, with results indicating an adequacy for the model with four factors (e.g., GFI = .91, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .064), with good internal consistency levels (Kline, 2013). These results were further replicated, indicating the internal consistency of the HS, and its suitability to use into research.

The present research

Recent studies of social psychology have suggested not only that the definition and maintenance of honor differs in cultural terms, but also the fact that differences can be highlighted in the way honor is conceptualized and understood (e.g., Mosquera et al., 2002a, 2002b; Vandello et al., 2009). For example, Guerra et al. (2012) in their research about the importance of honor concerns in eight countries (e.g., Brazil, United Kingdom, United States) found that individualistic cultures (e.g., USA) presented higher scores of integrity honor, whereas countries likeIsrael and Macedonia (i.e., honor cultures) attributed more importance to family honor. The authors also found gender differences arise across the honor factors, with “masculine” honor being endorsed by both genders. Finally, family concerns were associated to community, integrity concerns with autonomy, and feminine concerns with divinity.

In the Romanian context, research on this construct and its association with other psychological aspects do not exist. Therefore, knowing the importance of the construct and the relevance of expanding its acknowledgement in different cultures, this study aimed to better understand how honor occurs in Romania, besides validating the shorter version of the Honor Scale in the context. This was performed in one study (N = 444), using a range of statistical analyses (e.g., Correlation, Confirmatory Factor Analyses, Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analyses).

We also assessed whether the four factors of the Honor Scale would correlate with human values. We associated these two constructs because values have been and remain essential in explaining the issues of social and personal organization. Values are also used to describe groups, cultures, societies and individuals (Gouveia & Ros, 2000; Schwartz, 2012), and to track changes that occur over time in a cultural context, and to explain the motivations that guides the attitudes and behaviors of social actors. Therefore, it is undeniable the associations between the constructs. Specifically, we expected significant correlations between the factors of honor and social values. This type of values leads individuals to emphasize the group as the principal unit of survival (Schwartz, 1992), and are represented by normative and interactive values. Normative values representthe look for security and control, whereas interactive values represent the look to establish and maintain interpersonal relationships (Gouveia et al., 2014). Therefore, we hypothesized positive correlations between the factor of honor and social values, mainly with normative ones (obedience, tradition, and religiosity), which focus on the maintenance of the status quo (Gouveia et al., 2014; Mosquera et al., 2004). These individualistic cultures (e.g., USA) are more concerned with integrity honor, whereas honor cultures (e.g., Israel), more conservative, presented higher scores in family honor and integrity (Guerra et al., 2012).

Ethics

The present research has been ethically approved by the Scientific Committee of Center for Social Diagnosis from Faculty of Sociology and Psychology from West University of Timisoara, under the number 03/05.06.2016.

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants were 444 individuals (students = 222, general population = 222) equally divided regarding their gender. Their age ranged from 18 to 67 years (M = 31.8, SD = 12.10). Most of participants had a higher education: bachelor, master and doctoral degrees (81.1%) and lived in an urban area (83.1%). The data was collected through paper and pen method. Psychology students were instructed to collect the data from different parts of the country, considering that the questionnaires had to be distributed equally to both men and women. They had to present themselves requesting individuals’ voluntary participation, give oral instructions, and help with any question participants might have.

Instruments

Honor Scale (Guerra et al., 2013). The measure contains 16 items, equally distributed in four subscales: family honor (e.g., Item 3 “You did something to damage your family's reputation?”, or Item 13 “You let other people insult your family?”), social honor (e.g., Item 6 “You had the reputation of being dishonest with others?”, or Item 15 “You lied to others?”), masculine honor (e.g., Item 9 “You lacked authority over your own family?”, or Item 16.“You were known as someone who cannot support a family?”), and feminine honor (e.g., Item 2 “You were known as someone who has had many different sexual partners?” or Item 14 “You slept with someone without starting a serious relationship with that person?”). Participants were asked to indicate how bad they would feel about themselves if the behavior or reputation described would occur, using a 9-point scale, ranging from 1 (I wouldn’t feel bad) to 9 (I would feel very bad).

Basic Values Survey (Gouveia et al., 2014). The functional theory of human values distinguishes values according to their pursued goals (personal, central and social) and expressed needs (survival or thriving needs). The interplay between goals and needs yields six basic values, each one represented by three specific values, compounding its 18 items: excitement (emotion, pleasure, and sexuality), promotion (power, prestige, and success), existence (health, personal stability, and survival), suprapersonal (beauty, knowledge, and maturity), interactive (affectivity, belonging, and social support), and normative (obedience, religiosity, and tradition). Participants were asked to indicate to which extent they considered each one of the values as a guiding principle in their life, using a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (Completely unimportant) to 7 (Of the utmost importance).

The measures of honor and human values were translated from English to Romanian by two bilingual psychologists, and then the English and Romanian versions were compared by a bilingual Romanian teacher of English. The final versions of these instruments were then presented to 20 individuals from general population. They were asked to evaluate the instructions, answering scale, the content of the items, and to provide suggestions if they were not clear. No substantial modification was proposed.

Data analysis

All analyses were performed using R software (R Development Core Team, 2015). Through the Lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012), a Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) and a Multigroup CFA (MGCFA) were performed. For the CFA, the Robust Maximum Likelihood (MLR) estimator was considered. The following model fit indices were considered (Hair et al., 2015; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013): (1) Chi-square (χ2), which must be non-significant; (2) Comparative fit index (CFI) and (3) Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), which are recommended to be higher than .90; and (4) Root mean square error approximation (RMSEA), which must be lower than .10. We also compared the four-factor model with an alternative one-factor model, considering the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Lower values for those indices indicate a better model fit.

For the MGCFA, we considered the gender of participants, as the variable might present an important influence in how honor is perceived. The MGCFA allows checking whether participants are interpreting the measure in a similar way. As suggested by the literature, we considered the following models (Damásio, 2013; Milfont & Fischer, 2010): (Configural invariance, indicating if the structure is invariance through the groups; (2) Metric invariance, assessing whether the different groups rate the items in a similar way; and (3) Scalar invariance, indicating if the observed scores are associated to latent scores. The following indices were considered to assess if the structure of the HS is invariant: ΔCFI and ΔRMSEA, which must be equal or below .010 and .015, respectively (Chen, 2007).

Finally, to assess the reliability, we considered the Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's Omega. These were obtained through the user-friendly science package (Peters, 2016). And to assess the convergent validity, we performed Pearson’s correlations between the four factors of the Honor Scale with the measure of basic values and age.

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

First, we assessed the structure of the Honor Scale through CFAs. For that, we considered the well-known four factorial structure and compared to an alternative single factor model. As can be seen by the results in Table 1, the four-factor structure presented acceptable model fit indices and was preferable over the alternative model. The final structure can be seen in Figure 1. All factorial weights (lambdas) were statistically different from zero (λ ≠ 0; z > 1.96, p < .05), varying between .36 (Item 12) and .82 (Item 04).

Table 1.

Model fit indices—HS.

Models	χ²(g.l.)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA (IC90%)	AIC	BIC
One-factor	767.26 (104)	.69	.64	.120 (.113–.127)	30183.9	30380.4
Four-factor	335.13 (98)	.89	.86	.070 (.066–.081)	29606.5	29827.7

Figure 1.

Honor scale four-dimensional structure.

Factorial invariance

Through a Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analyses, we assessed whether men and women would interpret the measure in the same way. For that, we considered three models of invariance: Configural, Metric, and Scalar. As can be seen in Table 2, results indicated a full invariance across gender. The full invariance indicates that meaningful comparisons across gender can be made, once they are similarly interpreting the measure.

Table 2.

Measurement equivalence of the HS across gender.

Models of Invariance	CFI	RMSEA	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
Configural	.87	.082	–	–
Metric	.87	.079	.00	−.003
Scalar	.86	.080	.01	.001

Note. Δ = differences between the current and the previous model.

We also checked whether men and women presented significantly different results across the four factors of the Honor Scale. As expected, they only differed regarding the masculine honor (t[442] = 3.34, p = .001; Men M = 6.02, SD = 1.66, Women M = 5.50, SD = 1.62), and feminine honor (t[442] = −5.60, p < .001; Men M = 5.14, SD = 2.34, Women M = 6.33, SD = 2.11).

Reliability

After, we assessed the reliability of the Honor Scale factors, using both McDonald's omega (ω) and Cronbach's alpha (α). Results indicate good reliability (Kline, 2013) for all factors: family honor (ω and α = .76), social honor (ω and α = .81), masculine honor (ω = .72 and α = .69), and feminine honor (ω = .85 and α = .84). The overall measure also showed good reliability (ω and α = .89).

Convergent validity

Finally, to test the convergent validity of the Honor Scale, we correlated its factors with the six basic values from the functional theory (Gouveia et al., 2014). In line with our hypothesis, the correlation of honor was positive with all social values (normative and interactive), with stronger associations to normative (r = .26 to .41, p < .001). Significant associations can be seen through most of the values, with the exception for suprapersonal. Also, we assessed the associations of the honor factors to age, with significant results. The full results can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3.

Correlations between the Honor Scale factors with human values subfunctions and age.

	Honor dimensions
	Family	Social	Masculine	Feminine
Values
Excitement	−.161**	−.237**	.073	−.407**
Promotion	.132*	−.131*	.269**	−.143*
Existence	.165**	.092	.163**	.164**
Suprapersonal	−.039	.002	.060	−.042
Interactive	.194**	.149*	.139*	.196**
Normative	.408**	.278**	.262**	.379**
Age	.311**	.244**	.196**	.256**

Note. *p < .01, **p < .001.

Discussion

The present research aimed to assess how Honor occurs in Romania, besides providing evidence of psychometric properties for the short version of the Honor Scale in the context. For that, we considered a range of techniques (e.g., Correlations, Confirmatory Factor Analyses, Multigroup CFA), through a large sample. This research will certainly contribute to extend the knowledge regarding honor, still scarce in Romania, and to allow cross-cultural comparisons in further studies.

First, we assessed whether the four-dimensional structure would be reproduced in the Romanian context. Besides checking its model fit, we also compared this structure to an alternative one-dimensional model. Results indicated the preference for the original structure, encompassing the four dimensions of the Honor Scale, and showed its preference over the alternative model. This structure also showed a good reliability level for all four factors and for the full measure, through McDonalds’s omega and Cronbach’s alpha.

As gender is known as an important variable to honor, presenting different outcomes for men and women, we decided to assess whether they interpret the measure in the same way. When achieved, measurement invariance allows to perform meaningful comparisons between the groups considered (Davidov et al., 2014), assuring that we are not comparing “chopsticks with forks” (Chen, 2008). Results indicated full variance across gender for the Honor Scale in the Romanian context. In other words, men and women answered the measure similarly, and the results allow us to compare these groups when using the Honor Scale. Out of curiosity, we decided to compare whether they differed regarding their means through the four factors. As expected, they only differed regarding their results in the masculine honor and feminine honor factors.

After, we assessed whether the four factors from the Honor Scale would correlate with human values. Some significant results should be highlighted. As expected by our hypothesis, all factors of honor were positively associated with normative values, endorsed by individuals who tend to look for security and control, and interactive values, endorsed by individuals that seek to establish and maintain interpersonal relationships (Gouveia et al., 2014). Both these sub functions represent individuals that prioritize social goals, and thus emphasize the group as the principal unit of survival (Schwartz, 1992). Thus, individuals that highly endorse social values might need to position him\herself in a positive light in front of others.

Of these associations to social values, it is important to highlight the higher association between values and feminine honor. As pointed out by Rodrigues (2011), feminine honor is related with traditional attitudes towards sex roles. Also, as seen in prior research (e.g., Gavreliuc, 2011; Voicu & Voicu, 2007), Romania presented a higher endorsement of conservational values (e.g., tradition, conformity) and lower endorsement of openness to change values (e.g., hedonism, stimulation) in comparison to other European countries. Therefore, such results help to base our findings, where a higher feminine honor was positively related to normative values, typical in individuals who tend to look for security and control, and negatively with excitement, which represents the physiological need for variety and pleasure.

Other interesting pattern can be seen in these associations between honor and values. For instance, promotions values were positively associated to masculine honor, and negatively to feminine honor. Promotion values express materialistic needs and personal goals and are essential for individuals that are guided for personal and material accomplishments (Gouveia et al., 2014). Thus, as honor refers to the expression of how the individual is perceived by others, this pattern associating promotion values differently regarding masculine and feminine honor indicates more conservative views of honor in the Romanian context. A higher masculine honor is positively linked to those that seek for values such as power, prestige, and success, while for women the endorsement of these values would indicate a lower honor. These results show again that the Romanian society is still conservative and traditional, like it has been reported in Hofstede’s (2003) study on distinct national cultures. In his study, Romania scores high in the distance to power dimension and avoidance of uncertainty and relatively small scores on masculinity and individualism (Gavreliuc, 2011). Members of collectivist groups, such as Romania, present a strong within group identification, and are unlikely to intend to leave these groups. The social norms of these groups will specify the ways in which one is expected to behave. Members will therefore be likely to feel discomfort if their behavior differs from what they perceive to be expected for those who are similar to oneself. Differently, within individualistic cultures, reputation and distinctiveness depend on the evaluations from others. Social comparison will be less focused on behaving in ways that are similar to specific others and more concerned with actions that preserve one’s individual distinctiveness (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

Other evidence was obtained in the Romanian culture context by Gavreliuc (2012), who conducted a research in which three generations of Romanians were compared regarding to different attitudes and values. The fall of communism brought many socio-political and behavioral changes, but little change regarding psychological constructs (e.g., attitudes, values). . On his results, no significant difference was found for the lower levels of independence between the groups. Such findings suggest a decrease in individual autonomy as a response to the socio-political situation. Also, all groups presented high scores of self-esteem, with no significant differences found across generations. The intergenerational analysis of self-determination revealed that young people were more modestly self-determined than the elderly, contrary to the studies conducted in Western cultures (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Again conservatism and hierarchy values were more prevalent for the Romanian sample. Harmony values, intellectual autonomy, affective autonomy, and egalitarianism are less predominant for Romania than for the West European countries (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000).

The positive correlation between promotion values and masculine honor can be explained through the evolutionary perspective were gender differences in a very broad range of physical, biological and psychological indices (Archer, 2019; Schmitt, 2014). Men usually were concerned with taking care for the family and for providing resources. Men were characterized by lower parental investment, while women were the ones that gave birth and had to care for the babies. Men behaviors are related to power, promotion striving and competition. In his theories of evolution, Darwinattempts to show that women's role in society was the result of nature. Females are concerned with resources or genes while men often take some time to achieve command over resources. The most successful females would be those who secured a male with the greatest resources for the care of their young but also managed covertly to acquire the best genes on the side. There are various objections to the claim that these evolutionary speculations provide good explanations for central features of human gender differences. Evolutionary psychology offers a primary explanation for human behavior in general and gender-specific behavior in particular (Dupre, 2001).

Significant results were also found for the associations between age and the honor factors, suggesting that higher levels of honor being more characteristic of older people. Research suggest that when getting older, individuals decrease in the motivation to make changes to the self and society, increasing the endorsement of values that focus on the maintenance of elements of the past and of the status quo (Robinson, 2013). Therefore, being more conservative might help to explain such honor levels for higher age ranges.

In Romania, due to the fact that the State was the main agent of modernization throughout the last two centuries, no matter the nature of the political government, the individual involvement was confronted with a paternalistic-statist dimension that emphasized passivity, public indifference and assistentialism. These characteristics contributed to the maintenance of a status quo, perceived as implacable, that consolidated conservatism values (Cernat, 2010).

Out of curiosity, cultural comparisons can be made based on prior results using the Honor Scale in other countries (Guerra et al., 2012). For instance, when comparing to the results in USA and UK, Romania presented higher means for family (M = 6.94; USA _M = 5.76; UK _M = 6.43), masculine (M = 5.76; USA _M = 5.18; UK _M = 5.04) and feminine (M = 5.73; USA _M = 4.75; UK _M = 5.34) factors, but lower for social honor (also known as integrity; M = 7.02; USA _M = 7.81; UK _M = 7.24). Such findings might indicate that US Americans and British tend to care more about their own reputations, the image of themselves to their social groups, while Romanians present higher honor levels in factors that are more typical of conservative countries. Curiously, differently from studies with human values, where Romania presented as higher endorsing conservative values, when comparing its honor means with another country from Eastern Europe, as Macedonia, its results were lower. In Macedonia, the means were higher for all four factors of honor (Family honor, M = 8; Social honor, M = 7.77; Masculine honor, M = 7.04; Feminine honor, M = 6.63).

Limitation, future studies and conclusion

The main limitation of our research is the non-probabilistic sample (convenience). However, further studies are needed, aiming at investigating the test–retest reliability of this measure. However, it is important to highlight that the main objective of our study was achieved – to provide psychometric evidence for the Honor Scale in the Romanian context and assess its associations with human values. Our significant findings, as for instance the relations established between normative values with honor, show the respondent's need to position himself in a favorable light in relation to his fellows. In the Romanian current cultural context, the need for integrity is increasingly socially valued. Each person must obey social norms and rules that create a moral framework for the individual action. Therefore, in order to have a more accurate assessment of a person’s integrity in the Romanian context, we need a very clear system of values and moral principles. In this way, future studies can benefit from this research. For instance to explore individual variances of honor in different parts of Romania. Even further, cross-cultural comparisons can be made on social rules focusing on promoting selflessness or putting the community needs ahead of individual needs. Also, future research could explore the association of honor to different social psychological constructs (e.g., social axioms, prejudice) that can define a cultural context, or whether personality traits can explain higher or lower levels of honor.

The present research provided the first validation of a measure of honor into the Romanian Context, providing strong psychometric evidence for its use. Knowing the importance of honor, it is relevant to deepen its knowledge extending research to different cultures. This topic needs exploration in different cultural context because it gives the opportunity to understand and explain different types of attitudes and behaviors. We are confident that our aims were achieved, and that our findings will benefit future studies.

Footnotes

Author Biographies

Ana Pascalau, is a school psychologist in Timisoara at Centrul Judetean de Resurse si Asistenta Educationala (Timis County Resource and Educational Assistance Center) and psychotherapist in private practice. She has a Ph.D. in psychology at West University of Timisoara. Her main expertise areas are Educational and Clinical Psychology and interest areas in Social Psychology and CrossCultural Psychology( as a member at Social Diagnosis Center from West Umiversity of Timisoara). She is also member in the International Center for Excellence in Emotionally Focused Therapy.

Alin Gavreliuc, is Professor PhD at the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Sociology and Psychology, West University of Timisoara. His area of expertise is focused on Social Psychology and Cross-Cultural Psychology. He has coordinated several national grants of research and he has participated as an expert in many international research projects. He has published seven books as a main or single author and more than 50 articles in the Romanian and foreign scientific journals, including as a co-author in Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, European Journal of Social Psychology, Psychological Science or Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. He is also a member of International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP).

Valdiney V. Gouveia, is a Professor of Social Psychology at Federal University of Paraíba, Brazil. His main research interests include human values, attitudes, pro and antisocial behaviors, and personality traits. He is the author of the book "Functional theory of human values", where he describes the fundamentals, findings, and applications of this theory. He authored/co-authored more than three hundred publications, including peer-reviewed articles, books, and book chapters.

Gabriel Lins de Holanda Coelho, is a PhD in Psychology (Cardiff University, United Kingdom), MSc in Social Psychology (Federal University of Paraíba, Brazil). His main interests are in the fields of Social Psychology and Psychological Assessment. He has been studying human values, attitudes, personality, well-being, interpersonal relationships, need for affect, human behaviors, among many other variables.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

ORCID iDs

Alin Gavreliuc

Gabriel Lins de Holanda Coelho

References

Archer

(2019). The reality and evolutionary significance of human psychological sex differences. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 94(4), 1381–1415.

Blincoe

Harris

M. J.

(2011). Status and inclusion, anger and sadness: Gendered responses to disrespect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 508–517. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.811

Brown

R. P.

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

Brown

R. P.

Osterman

L. L.

Barnes

C. D.

(2009). School violence and the culture of honor. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1400–1405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02456.x

Cernat

(2010). Socio-economic status and political support in post-communist Romania. Communist & Post-Communist Studies, 43, 43–50.

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

Chen

F. F.

(2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1005–1018. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013193

Coelho

G. L. H.

Hanel

P. H. P.

Wolf

L. W.

(2018). The very efficient assessment of need for cognition: Developing a six-item version. Assessment, 0(00), 1-16https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118793208

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

10.

Dahlsgaard

Peterson

Seligman

M. E.

(2005). Shared virtue: The convergence of valued human strengths across culture and history. Review of General Psychology, 9(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.203

11.

Damásio

B. F.

(2013). Contributions of the multigroup confirmatory factor analysis in the invariance evaluation of psychometric tests. Psico-USF, 18(2), 211–220. http://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-82712013000200005

12.

Davidov

Meuleman

Cieciuch

Schmidt

Billiet

(2014). Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137

13.

Gavreliuc

(2011). Psihologie interculturală—Repere teoretice și diagnoze românești [Intercultural psychology—Theoretical landmarks and Romanian diagnoses]. Polirom.

14.

Gavreliuc

(2012). Continuity and change of values and attitudes in generational cohorts of the post-communist Romania. Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 191–212.

15.

D’Souza, A. J., Russell, M., Wood, B., Signal, L., & Elder, D. (2016). Attitudes to physical punishment of children are changing. Archives of disease in childhood, 101(8), 690–693.

16.

Gavreliuc, A. (2009). Abordarea interculturală a organizaţiilor – o perspectivă românească. In E. Avram & C. Cooper (eds.), Psihologie organizaţional-managerială. Tendinţe actuale. (pp. 222–247). Iaşi: Polirom.

17.

Gavreliuc, A. (2011a). Psihologie interculturală. Repere teoretice şi diagnoze româneşti. Iaşi: Polirom.

18.

Gavreliuc, A. (2011b). Româniile din România. Individualism autarhic, tipare valorice transgeneraţionale şi autism social. Timişoara: Editura Univerisăţii de Vest.

19.

Gavreliuc, A. (2012a). Continuity and change of values and attitudes in generational cohorts of post-communist Romania. Cognition, Brain, Behaviour. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14(2), 191–212.

20.

Gavreliuc, A (2012b). Cercetări asupra tiparelor valorice şi atitudinale. In T. Rotaru, E. Voineagu (eds), Inerţie şi schimbare. Dinamici ale tranziţiei în România. (pp. 293–320). Iaşi: Polirom.

21.

Gavreliuc, A., Ciobotă, C. I. (2013). Culture and Self-construal: Implications for the Social Cognitions of Young Cohorts in Romania. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 78, 270–274. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.293

22.

Gilmore

D. D.

(1987). Honor and shame and the unity of the Mediterranean. American Anthropological Association.

23.

Gilmore

D. D.

Gwynne

(1985). Sex and gender in southern Europe [Special Issue], Anthropology, 9.

24.

Gouveia

V. V.

Milfont

Guerra

(2014). Functional theory of human values: Testing its content and structure hypotheses. Personality and Individual Differences, 60, 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.012

25.

Gouveia

V. V.

Ros

(2000). The Hofstede’s and Schwartz models for classifying individualism at the cultural level: Their relation to macro-social and macroeconomic variables. Psicothema, 12, 25–33.

26.

Gouveia

V. V.

Vione

K. C.

Milfont

T. L.

Fischer

(2015). Patterns of value change during the life span some evidence from a functional approach to values. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(9), 1276–1290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215594189

27.

Guerra

V. M.

Giner-Sorolla

Vasiljevic

(2013). The importance of honor concerns across eight countries. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(3), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212463451

28.

Guerra

V. M.

Gouveia

Araujo

C. R.

Josenberg

Gaudencio

C. A.

(2013). Honor scale: Evidence on construct validity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(6), 1273–1280. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12089

29.

Hair

J. F. J.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2015). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.

30.

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

31.

Hogan

Blickle

(2017). Socioanalytic theory: Basic concepts, supporting evidences, and practical implications. In Zeigler-Hill

Shackelford

T. K.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences. SAGE.

32.

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

33.

IJzerman

van Dijk

W. W.

Gallucci

(2007). A bumpy train ride: A field experiment on insult, honor, and emotional reactions. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 7(4), 869–875. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.869

34.

Kline

(2013). Handbook of psychological testing. Routledge.

35.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

36.

Milfont

T. L.

Fischer

(2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111–130. http://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857

37.

Mosquera

P. M. R.

Manstead

Fischer

(2000). The role of honor related values in the elicitation, experience and communication of pride, shame, and anger: Spain and The Netherlands compared. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(7), 833–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200269008

38.

Mosquera, P. M. R., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). Inside the heart of emotion. On culture and relational concerns. In L. Tiedens & C. W. Leach (Eds.), The social life of emotion (pp. 187–202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Mosquera

P. M. R.

Manstead

Fischer

A. H.

(2002a). The role of honour concerns in emotional reactions to offences. Cognition & Emotion, 16(1), 143–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930143000167

40.

Mosquera

P. M. R.

Manstead

Fischer

A. H.

(2002b). Honor in the Mediterranean and Northern Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(1), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033001002

41.

Nisbett

R. E.

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

42.

Nisbett

R. E.

Cohen

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

43.

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

44.

Osterman

L. L.

Brown

R. P.

(2011). Culture of honor and violence against the self. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(12), 1611–1623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211418529

45.

Păşcălău, A., & Gavreliuc, A. (2018). Teoria funcţională a valorilor – o nouă perspectivă în evaluarea dinamicii sociale. Revista de Psihologie (Journal of Psychology), 64(4), 305–315.

46.

Parks-Leduc

Feldman

Bardi

(2015). Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 19(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538548

47.

Peristiany

(1966). Honour and shame: The values of Mediterranean society. Weidenfeld & Nicholson.

48.

Peters

G. J.

(2016). Quantitative analysis made accessible. https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/userfriendlyscience/userfriendlyscience.pdf

49.

Pitt-Rivers

(1966). Honour and social status. In Peristiany

(Ed.), Honour and shame (pp. 19–78). Weidenfeld and Nicholson.

50.

Pitt-Rivers

(2001). A doença da honra [The disease of honor]. In Gautheron

M. A.

(Ed.), A honra: Dom de si ou ideal equívoco (pp. 17–32). LP&M Editores.

51.

R Development Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

52.

Rodrigues, P. M. R. (2011). Masculine and feminine honor codes. Revista de Psicología Social, 26(1), 63–72.

53.

Rosseel

(2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.

54.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

55.

Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). Cultural values in organisations: Insights for Europe. European Journal of International Management, 1(3), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2007.014692

56.

Schmitt

D. P.

(2014). The evolution of culturally-variable sex differences: Men and women are not always different, but when they are…it appears not to result from patriarchy or sex role socialization. In Shackelford

T. K.

Hansen

R. D.

(Eds.), The evolution of sexuality. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09384-0_11

57.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

58.

Schwartz

S. H.

(2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116

59.

Schwartz

S. H.

Bilsky

(1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550

60.

Smith

P. B.

Easterbrook

M. J.

Blount

Koc

Harb

Torres

Ahmad

A. H.

Ping

Celikkol

G. C.

Loving

R. D.

Rizwan

(2017). Culture as perceived context: An exploration of the distinction between dignity, face and honor cultures. Acta de Investigación Psicológica, 7(1), 2568–2576.

61.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

62.

Vandello

Cohen

(2003). Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 997–1010.

63.

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

64.

Vassiliou

V. G.

Vassiliou

(1973). The implicative meaning of the Greek concept of Philotimo. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 4(3), 326–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/002202217300400305

65.

Voicu

Telegdy

(2016). Dynamics of social values: 1990–2012. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae. Social Analysis, 6(1), 7–22.

66.

Voicu, B. (2001). România pseudo-modernă. Sociologie Românească, 1(4), 36–59.

67.

Voicu, B. (2005). Social capital: bonding or bringing Europe? In H. Rusu, B. Voicu (ed.). EU integration process from EAST to EAST: Civil society and ethnic minorities in a changing world. (pp. 77–98). Sibiu: Psihomedia.

68.

Voicu

(Eds.). (2007). Valori ale românilor (1993–2006) [Values of Romanians (1993–2006)]. Iaşi, Institutul European.