Culture and Aggression

3 June 2004

Lecture Summary

• Defining the Culture of Honor– Historical and anthropological data

• Differences in homicide rates between the North and South– Archival analyses

• Differences in attitudes towards violence btw the North and South– Survey data

• Insult, anger, and aggression– Experimental data

• Violence, social policy, and the law– Archival, Survey, and Quasi-Experimental data

What is a Culture of Honor?

• Occurs when– Wealth is portable

• e.g. herding vs. agriculture

– Law is ineffective• e.g. frontier or otherwise

hostile lands

• Therefore, must keep up the appearance of strength– e.g. Navaho vs. Zuni

cultures– e.g. Scotch-Irish herders vs.

Dutch farmers

• “Honor”:– “respect that situates an

individual socially and determines his right to precedence”

• Key aspect of a culture of honor:– Insults must be dealt with swiftly and violently

– “The Southerner who can avoid both arguments and adultery is as safe as any other American…”

Killers and their Victims by Size of City

0

2

4

6

8

10

New England

Mid Atlantic

Midwest Pacific Mountain Southwest South

Offenders VictimsDV: Rate per 100,000

Small City, Population 10,000-50,000

Killers and their Victims by Size of City Big City, Population 200,000 plus

DV: Rate per 100,000 Offenders Victims

0

5

10

15

20

25

New England

Middle Atlantic

Midwest Pacific Mountain SW South

Homicide Rates Within the South

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Moist Plains Hills and Dry Plains

Rate per 100,000

Homicide Rates Within the South: Rural Areas (populations < 2,500)

Per Capita Income ($1000’s)

0 1 2 3 4 5

Moist Plains

Hills and Dry Plains

Average July Temperature (degrees F)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Moist Plains

Hills and Dry Plains

% Enslaved in 1860

0 10 20 30 40 50

Moist Plains

Hills and Dry Plains

Types of Murders Committed inthe South/SW vs. the non-South

Felony-Related Argument-Related

0

1

2

3

4

5

Non-South South & SW0

2

4

6

8

Non-South South & SW

Felony-Related Argument-Related

Cities w. Population < 200,000 Cities w. Population > 200,000

Summary So Far

• The South is more violent than the non-South– BUT most of this is explained by argument-related

violence (not felonies)

• The usual alternate explanations (SES, temperature, history of slavery) do not explain this violence

• The only variable that seems to explain this is history of herding (vs. agriculture)

Violence for Protection of Self, Family, and Property

0

20

40

60

80

100

“A man has the right to kill another

man in self-defense”

Non-South South & SW

Per

cen

t w

ho

“A

gre

e a

Gre

at D

eal”

“A man has the right to kill to

defend his family”

“A man has the right to kill to

defend his house”

Violence for Social Control:Protection of Institutions

0

10

20

30

40

50

let it go shoot to kill let it go shoot to kill let it go shoot to kill

hoodlums students big city riots

South Non-South

% S

ayin

g “S

omet

imes

” or

“A

lmos

t A

lway

s”

Violence in Response to Affronts: The Fred Scenarios

0

5

10

15

20

25

Violent response is“extremely justified”

Fred would be“not much of a man”

if response not violent

Non-south South

Honor and Friendship Disruption

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

fist fight insult

Non-south South

DV: % who would be angry for at least a month.

Honor and Childrearing

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

support spanking son should fight boy who hit him

son should fight bully

Nonsouth South

Honor and Gun Control

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

carry weapon

bought gun

nonviolentpreventativemeasures

non-south south

0

10

20

30

40

makes home safer

makes homemore dangerous

DV: % taking protective measure DV: % endorsement

Summary So Far

• Southerners are more violent than non-Southerners in specific ways:– More violent response to insults

• Even with friends

– More violent response to threats to self, property, or family

– More likely to use guns for self-protection– More likely to teach violence to their children

• Does this violence translate to real behavior?– So far these data are from archival reports and large-

scale surveys

“Honor” Experiments

• Ss are white, non-Hispanic, non-Jewish male UMich students– ½ are Northerners, ½ are Southerners– Average family income is $85K for

Northerners, $95.5K for Southerners

• All 3 expts use the same basic situation– A confederate bumps into an unsuspecting

subject as he walks down a narrow hallway, and then insults him

Experiment 1

• Cognitive and emotional reactions to an insult• Cover story (response time constraints on

judgments)• IVs:

– bump/insult vs. control– insult prime vs. neutral scenario completions

• DVs: – rating of Ss’ anger and amusement from facial

expression, body language, verbal reaction (both on scales from 1-7)

– scenario completions coded for violence

Experiment 1 ResultsNorth South

0

20

40

60

80

100

anger > amusement

amusement > anger

0

20

40

60

80

insulted not insulted

Note: Northerner diff is not significant.DV here is % violent completions.

Experiment 2

• Physiological reactions to insults

• Cover story: measuring blood sugar changes which Ss do tasks

• IV: bump/insult vs. control

• DV: BL vs. post-bump/control cortisol and testosterone

Experiment 2 Results

0 5 10 15

Control

Insult

% Change in Testosterone Level

0 20 40 60 80 100

Control

Insult

% Change in Cortisol LevelNorth South

Experiment 3

• Behavioral reactions to an insult– The “chicken” manipulation

• IV: bump/insult vs. control• DV:

– inches before “chickening out”– firmness of handshake (evaluated by confed)– dominance rating (evaluated by confed)– self-rated masculine status

Experiment 3 Results

3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6

Control

Insult

Confederate’s Ratings of Firmness of Handshake

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Control

Insult

Distance at which Subject Gave Way to Confederate (inches)

More Expt 3 Results

Perceived masculine status self-ratings

2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6

Control andPrivate Insult

Public Insult

0 1 2 3 4 5

Control

Insult

Confederate’s ratings of Subject’s dominanceNorth South

Summary

• Southerners feel more damaged (reputation for strength, masculinity) by an insult than do Northerners

• S get more upset by insults than N (cortisol, emotion ratings)

• S more cognitively primed for violence in insult situations than N (violent story completions)

• S are more physiologically prepared for violence than N (testosterone)

• S are more domineering after insults than are N (expt 3)• S behave more physically aggressive after insults than do

N (“chicken”)

Collective Expressions of the Culture of Honor

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

North South

Strictness of Gun Control Laws

0

20

40

60

80

100

Retreat Surrender Compliance

% of states in North vs. South requiring retreat, surrender, and compliance to demands rather than killing assailant

More Collective Expressions…

0

20

40

60

80

100

% states prohibiting corporal punishment

in schools

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

all states states where corporalpunishment allowed

% of students given corporal punishment, 1989-1990

North South

Capital Punishment

0

20

40

60

80

100

% states allowingcapital punishment

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

% deathsentences

0

1

2

3

4

5

% executions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% states carrying out executions

North South

Honor Letter Field Experiment

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Honor Letter Control Letter

Compliance with job applicant’s requests

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Honor Letter Control Letter

Warmth of response tohonor/control letter

North South

Newspaper Field Experiment

0

1

2

3

4

5

Provocation

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Blameworthiness

0

20

40

60

80

100

% newspapers treating honor offender more sympathetically

than control offender

North South