9609_An investigation of forgiveness in an honor culture

Graduate Theses and Dissertations
Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and
Dissertations
2019
An investigation of forgiveness in an honor culture
Vanessa A. Castillo
Iowa State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd
Part of the Social Psychology Commons
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital
Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital
Repository. For more information, please contact digirep@iastate.edu.
Recommended Citation
Castillo, Vanessa A., “An investigation of forgiveness in an honor culture” (2019). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 16982.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/16982

An investigation of forgiveness in an honor culture

by

Vanessa A. Castillo

A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Major: Psychology

Program of Study Committee:
Susan E. Cross, Major Professor
Carolyn E. Cutrona
Loreto R. Prieto

The student author, whose presentation of the scholarship herein was approved by the
program of study committee, is solely responsible for the content of this thesis. The Graduate
College will ensure this thesis is globally accessible and will not permit alterations after a
degree is conferred.

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa

2019

Copyright © Vanessa A. Castillo, 2019. All rights reserved.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………………………………….
iv
LIST OF TABLES
………………………………………………………………………………………………. v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ……………………………………………………………………………………
vi
ABSTRACT……………………………….
…………………………………………………………..
vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION. …………………………………………………………………………. 1
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………………………………… 2

Confronting or Withdrawing after Conflict ……………………………………………………….. 4

Forgiving or Holding a Grudge after Conflict ……………………………………………………. 6

Conceptualization of Forgiveness
……………………………………………………………….. 7

Forgiveness and Reputation
……………………………………………………………………….. 8

Hypotheses ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12

Research Overview ………………………………………………………………………………………. 12

CHAPTER 3. PILOT STUDY 1
………………………………………………………………………….. 14

Method ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

Participants
…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

Measures ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

Conflict content
………………………………………………………………………………. 14

Forgiveness measures ……………………………………………………………………… 15

Conflict responses
…………………………………………………………………………… 15

Demographics ………………………………………………………………………………… 16

Procedure ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16

Results and Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………. 17

CHAPTER 4. PILOT STUDY 2
………………………………………………………………………….. 22

Method ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22

Participants
…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22

Measures and Materials …………………………………………………………………………… 23

Conflict scenarios………………………………………………………………………………. 23

Attention checks………………………………………………………………………………… 24

Revenge and avoidance motivation ……………………………………………………… 24

Procedure ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 25

Results
………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25

iii

CHAPTER 5. PRIMARY STUDY
………………………………………………………………………. 28

Method ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29

Participants
…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29

Measures ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 30

Conflict scenarios………………………………………………………………………………. 30

Morality judgements ………………………………………………………………………….. 30

Prevention focus………………………………………………………………………………… 31

Demographics …………………………………………………………………………………… 32

Data cleaning ……………………………………………………………………………………. 32

Procedure ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 33

Results
………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34

Manipulation Checks ………………………………………………………………………………. 35

How Do Latinx and Northern European Americans Evaluate Responses to

Conflict?
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 36

Masculine scenario…………………………………………………………………………….. 36

Family scenario
…………………………………………………………………………………. 39

Feminine scenario ……………………………………………………………………………… 41

Does Prevention Focus Explain the Interaction of Cultural Group Reactions

on Morality Judgements?
…………………………………………………………………………. 44

Masculine scenario…………………………………………………………………………….. 45

Family scenario
…………………………………………………………………………………. 45

Feminine scenario ……………………………………………………………………………… 45

Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 46

Limitations and Future Directions …………………………………………………………….. 50

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 52

REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 54
APPENDIX A. PILOT STUDY 1 MEASURES
……………………………………………………. 62
APPENDIX B. PILOT STUDY 2 SCENARIOS …………………………………………………… 64
APPENDIX C. PRIMARY STUDY: SCENARIOS AND ALTERNATIVE ENDINGS

…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 66

APPENDIX D. PRIMARY STUDY: MEASURES
……………………………………………….. 68
APPENDIX E. INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL FORM
……………. 70

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 Mediated Moderation Model ………………………………………………………………… 11

Figure 2 Effects of Conflict Reactions on Morality Judgement for Each Reputation

Threat Scenario
…………………………………………………………………………………… 44

v

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table 1 Categories of Conflicts Recalled in Pilot Study 1 ……………………………………. 18
Table 2 Conflict Characteristics from Pilot Study 1 …………………………………………….. 20
Table 3 Relationships Between Participants and Offenders in Pilot Study 1 …………… 20
Table 4 Scenario Ratings from Pilot Study 2
………………………………………………………. 27
Table 5 Analysis of Revenge and Avoidance Motivations for Latinx Americans
and Northern European Americans…………………………………………………………. 27
Table 6 Percent of Participants who Correctly Identified the Offender ………………….. 33
Table 7 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Latinx and Northern European
American …………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
Table 8 Manipulation Checks by Cultural Group
………………………………………………… 37
Table 9 ANOVA and Simple Effects for Masculine Reputation Threat Scenario ……. 39
Table 10 ANOVA and Simple Effects for Family Reputation Threat Scenario
…………. 41
Table 11 ANOVA and Simple Effects for Feminine Reputation Threat Scenario
……… 43
Table 12 Mediated Moderation Model ………………………………………………………………… 47

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my major professor, Dr. Susan E. Cross, for her guidance and
support throughout the course of this research. I would also like to thank my committee members
for their support and feedback in this process.
I would not be able to conduct this research without the assistance of my colleagues at
Texas A&M and the University of Texas. Also, I want to offer my appreciation to those who
were willing to participate in my surveys, without whom, this thesis would not have been
possible.
Last but not least, I am very grateful for the constant love and support from my mother
and my partner.

vii

ABSTRACT
Latinx Americans are members of an honor culture because of their Mediterranean
cultural heritage whereas northern European Americans are members of a dignity culture.
Members of an honor culture feel the need to maintain a positive reputation especially when that
reputation is threatened. When there is a reputation threat, members of an honor culture perceive
confronting as more appropriate than withdrawing from the situation. What has not been
examined is forgiveness in the context of a reputation threat. Forgiveness is not seen positively in
cultures of honor because it is perceived as risky to one’s reputation. I proposed that members of
an honor culture may perceive forgiveness as moral if their reputation has been restored (in the
scenario where they confronted the offender). I conducted an online scenario study to examine
four different combinations of conflict reactions; confront and forgive, confront and hold a
grudge, withdraw and forgive, and withdraw and hold a grudge. Participants read and indicated
how moral they thought the protagonist’s conflict reaction was in response to a reputation threat
(masculine, family, or feminine). Results showed that Latinx and northern European Americans
rated the morality of the protagonist similarly across reputation threat scenarios. Specifically,
they thought that withdrawing and forgiving the offender after a reputation threat was the most
moral response.

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
In 1794, Antonio Pilmo went for a walk in the street after his lunch where he encountered
his neighbor José María Troncoso. In passing, Antonio mentioned he would “unmask” José. This
was a serious offense, as it implied that José was not who he appeared to be. Immediately, a loud
scuffle began, and bystanders stepped in to intervene. Later that day, José armed himself and
killed Antonio for the humiliation (Johnson & Lipsett-Rivera, 1998). People often encounter this
type of conflict, where someone insults them or makes a rude comment about them such as in the
example described above. How people handle these conflicts depends upon many factors such as
their cultural upbringing. Depending on how they were raised, some individuals would say José
should have walked away from the conflict without retaliating because they follow the idea that
“sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” In contrast, others have
been raised to agree that José should have confronted the neighbor, because “A mal nudo, mal
cuño” (English equivalent: You must meet roughness with roughness). This idea of aggressive
reciprocity is a common phenomenon in honor cultures such as Latin America. When members
of an honor culture face an honor threat, such as in the example above, retaliation is an expected
response (Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwarz, 1996). Many studies have examined aggressive,
retaliatory behavior in response to conflicts; however, prosocial behaviors such as forgiveness
have not been thoroughly investigated.

2

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
To understand a behavior or reaction, one must understand the cultural logic that
underlies this behavior. Leung and Cohen (2011) stated that “cultural logic weaves together
various scripts, behaviors, practices, and cultural patterns around [a] central theme, giving them a
meaning and a certain logical consistency and coherence for the people of a culture” (p.508).
Therefore, in one culture, beating up someone because they had insulted one’s integrity may
seem like an appropriate response to an honor threat, whereas in another culture, it may seem
like an inappropriate response. Cultural logic helps one to understand the reason retaliation is
appropriate in one situation but not in another.
Latinx Americans represent an honor culture due to their Mediterranean cultural heritage.
Anthropological research has demonstrated a main concern of the Mediterranean was honor
(Peristiany, 1965; Pitt-Rivers, 1966; Stewart, 1994). Honor was said to be “the value of a person
in his own eyes, but also in the eyes of his society” (Pitt-Rivers, p.21). Therefore, honor is a
combination of an individual’s self-worth and reputation. Because honor is socially conferred, it
can be given and taken away by others. When the Spanish and Portuguese established colonies in
the Americas, they brought over these cultural values of honor to the Western hemisphere
(Johnson & Lipsett-Rivera, 1998). Honor values can still be seen today in individuals with
Iberians roots such as Latinx individuals. These honor values tend to be reflected in concepts
such as machismo, marianismo, and familism. Machismo and marianismo reflect gendered
components of honor—masculine and feminine honor—that prescribe different honor codes for
men and women. Men maintain their reputation by being assertive, virile, and standing up for
one’s self and family. Women maintain their reputation by being pure/modest, self-sacrificing,
and loyal to the men and the family (De La Cancela, 1986; Rodriguez Mosquera, 2011; Stevens,
3

1973; 1994). Familism reflects a family component of honor, where the individual has the
responsibility to maintain the family’s reputation by their own behavior and to defend the
family’s reputation when attacked (Steidel & Contreras, 2003). The cultural logic of honor is not
limited to the Mediterranean, but also can be found in the South of the United States (Nisbett &
Cohen, 1996) and Middle Eastern countries such as Turkey (Bagli & Sev’er, 2003).

Northerners in the United States and people of Northern European countries such as the
Netherlands are members of a dignity culture (Leung & Cohen, 2011; Rodriguez Mosquera,
Manstead, & Fischer, 2002a, 2002b). The cultural logic of dignity cultures revolves around the
idea that an individual has inherent worth independent of reputation (Leung & Cohen, 2011).
This means that self-worth is not conferred by others nor can it be taken away by others.
Therefore, a person behaves properly not because others will see that behavior, but because of
his or her own internal standards.

Members of honor and dignity cultures both understand the idea of honor, but value
different aspects of honor. According to Pitt-Rivers (1966) and Peristiany (1965), honor is
thought of as a combination of self-worth and social-worth. Self-worth or self-esteem is an
aspect of honor which both members of dignity and honor cultures have in common. When
members of honor (Spain) and dignity (Netherlands) cultures were asked what honor meant, they
both gave similar proportions of self-worth-related responses (Rodriguez Mosquera et al.,
2002a). The aspect of honor that seems to differentiate members of honor and dignity cultures is
social worth or reputation. Members of an honor (Spain) culture feel the need to maintain a
positive social self-image more so than do members of a dignity culture (Rodriguez Mosquera,
2011; Rodriguez Mosquera, Fischer, Manstead, & Zaalberg, 2008). In honor cultures, it is
important to protect one’s reputation, because those who do not protect their reputation are often
4

ostracized, gossiped about, discriminated against, and sometimes killed (Gilmore, 1987;
Schneider, 1971; Wikan, 2008).
Confronting or Withdrawing After Conflict
As mentioned in the story at the beginning of this introduction, Antonio insulted José,
which was a threat to José’s honor/reputation. Because honor is socially conferred by others, it
can be easily lost and difficult to regain (Stewart, 1994). Therefore, to avoid the loss of honor
conferred by others, one needs to confront/retaliate against the offender in a way that will be
noticed by others, because doing nothing or withdrawing from the situation will lead to dishonor
(Gilmore, 1987; Peristiany, 1965). This behavior is reinforced by strong norms of reciprocity
among members of honor cultures (Leung & Cohen, 2011). Therefore, an honorable person is a
person who repays people for their kindness and maliciousness. After a reputation threat,
negative reciprocity is endorsed and expected by members of an honor culture.
In honor cultures, when there is a reputation threat, aggression and retaliation are
common responses. When members of an honor culture (Turkey) were given a scenario where
someone was insulted (a reputation threat), members said they would respond more aggressively
compared to members of a dignity culture (van Osch, Breugelmans, Zeelenberg, & Bölük, 2013).
When members of an honor culture (Turkey and Latinx Americans) were given honor
threatening scenarios, they were more likely than members of a dignity culture to indicate they
and the average person would retaliate against the offender (Pilot Study 2 below; see also Shafa,
Harinck, & Ellmers, 2017). Not only do members of an honor culture self-report they will
behave aggressively and retaliate, but in experimental studies using behavioral measures they
were found to be more aggressive and more likely to retaliate than members of a dignity culture
(Cohen et al., 1996; Uskul et al., 2015).
5

These responses to reputation threats are not seen as deviant, but as an appropriate
response among members of an honor culture. Members of an honor culture (Turkey) approved
more of people who confronted another for a false accusation (a reputation threat) than they
approved of those who walked away (Cross, Uskul, Gerçek-Swing, Alözkan, & Ataca, 2013).
Walking away from an honor threat tends to weaken one’s reputation. For example, those who
endorsed masculine honor perceived those who walked away after a masculine honor threat as
less manly (O’Dea, Bueno, & Saucier, 2017). Therefore, in honor cultures, it is viewed more
positively when a person confronts rather than withdraws from an individual making an honor
threat.
One reason members of an honor culture may perceive withdrawing from an honor threat
negatively is they perceive it to be an immoral response. People make judgements about others’
behaviors on three dimensions: morality, sociability, and competence (Brambilla, Rusconi,
Sacchi, & Cherubini, 2011). These social judgements influence how individuals behave towards
others such as the willingness to help and cooperate with others (De Bruin & Van Lange, 1999;
Pagliaro, Brambilla, Sacchi, D’angelo, Ellemers, 2013). The most important dimension for
impression formation is morality as it is more desirable in others and in the self than competence
and sociability (Goodwin, Piazza, & Rozin, 2014; Wojciszke, Bazinska, & Jaworski, 1998).
People find it worse to be considered immoral than to be considered incompetent or mean
(Goodwin, 2015; Goodwin et al., 2014). Therefore, striving to be a moral person is ideal and
accomplished through following norms that characterize a person as “good” or “bad.” I
hypothesized Latinx Americans would perceive a person who confronted the offender as more
moral than a person who withdrew from a reputation threatening situation.
6

For members of a dignity culture, there is no one “right” way to handle a conflict or a
reputation threat. Northern European Americans are members of a dignity culture where they are
presumed to have inherent worth which is not socially conferred by others. Leung and Cohen
(2011) characterized members of dignity cultures as having an internal sense of standards that
guide moral behavior. Therefore, northern European Americans are presumed to do “good”
behaviors because of their own internal sense of morality, not because others will see and
approve or disapprove. In addition, northern European Americans are a relatively loose society,
where social norms and expectations for appropriate behavior are varied and less restrictive
(Gelfand et al., 2011). Therefore, I hypothesized northern European Americans would perceive a
person who confronted the offender and the person who withdrew from a reputation threat
similarly in terms of morality.
Examining reactions to conflict by members of honor cultures seem to indicate a pattern
of behavior. When there is a reputational threat involved, members of an honor culture tend to
confront or retaliate against the offender. Although considerable research has focused on
aggressive and retaliatory reactions in response to reputation threats among members of honor
cultures, few studies have examined prosocial responses in honor cultures and none to date have
studied forgiveness among Latinx Americans as an honor culture. This was a limitation in the
honor culture literature that this research sought to address.
Forgiving or Holding a Grudge After Conflict
Honor culture research has focused on the choice to confront the offender or withdraw
from the conflict (e.g., Beersma, Harinck, & Gerts, 2003; Cohen, Vandello, Puente, & Rantilla,
1999; Cross et al., 2013; Günsoy, Cross, Uskul, Adams, & Gercek-Swing, 2015; O’Dea et al.,
2017). Research on honor culture has not yet explored the choice of forgiveness or grudge
7

holding. This study aimed to answer the following two questions: “Do members of an honor
culture believe forgiveness is an appropriate response to a reputation threat?” and “Is forgiveness
more acceptable after confronting the offender?”
Conceptualization of Forgiveness
When conflict occurs, forgiveness is generally seen as a desirable outcome as it has
psychological, physical, and relational benefits (Karremans, Van Lange, Ouwerkerk & Kluwer,
2003; McCullough et al., 2010; Witvliet, Ludwig, & Vander Laan, 2001). Forgiveness is a
prosocial change towards a perceived offender (McCullough, Pargament, & Thorsen, 2000).
There are two different types of forgiveness an individual can experience: decisional and
emotional forgiveness. Decisional forgiveness is a behavioral process, where individuals make a
behavioral statement to control their negative responses (avoidance and revenge) towards the
offender and restore the relationship to prior to when the transgression occurred (Worthington,
2003). Emotional forgiveness is an affective process where individuals reduce their negative
emotions and increase their positive feelings towards the offender (Worthington). Baumeister,
Exline, and Sommer (1998) argued an individual can experience any combination of these two
types of forgiveness. They can experience total forgiveness, which is when a person forgives
decisionally and emotionally. Also, one can decide to grant decisional forgiveness but still hold
negative feelings against the offender, which is called hollow forgiveness, or they can feel
emotional forgiveness but neglect to express it decisionally, which is called silent forgiveness.
Forgiveness research has been conducted predominantly in dignity cultures such as the
U.S. (Leach & Parazak, 2015; Sandage & Williamson, 2005). When non-western researchers
have examined forgiveness, it generally has been examined from an individualistic-collectivistic
framework. Cross-cultural findings indicate that members of an individualistic culture tend to
8

emphasize emotional forgiveness as it enables them to feel healthy and happy. In contrast,
members of a collectivistic culture tended to emphasize decisional forgiveness because they
understood forgiveness as a social obligation to maintain relationship harmony (Fu, Watkins, &
Hui, 2004; Hook, Worthington, Utsey, Davis, & Burnette, 2012; Hook et al., 2013;
Kadiangandu, Gauché, Vinsonneau, & Mullet, 2007; Younger, Piferi, Jobe, & Lawler, 2004).
The problem with understanding forgiveness through an individualistic-collectivistic framework
is it overlooks the differences between collectivistic cultures. Not all collectivistic cultures are
the same. East Asians are members of a Confucian-based collectivist society as they focus on
harmony and modesty, whereas, Latinx/Hispanics are members of an honor-based collectivistic
society as they focus on maintaining a good reputation (Uskul, Oyserman, & Schwarz, 2010).
This means values and decisions regarding forgiveness vary across collectivistic cultures. East
Asians may perceive forgiveness positively and choose to forgive because it enables them to
maintain harmony; whereas, Latinx Americans may perceive forgiveness negatively and avoid
forgiving if it means losing one’s reputation.
Forgiveness and Reputation
We hypothesized that members of an honor culture would forgive less when their
reputation was challenged compared to members of a dignity culture. A recent study by Castillo
and Cross (Pilot Study 1 below) had Latinx and northern European Americans recall a conflict
and their levels of forgiveness towards the offender. We found criticism (a potential honor
threat) moderated the relationship between cultural groups and forgiveness. When Latinx
Americans recalled a conflict in which they were criticized, they were less likely to decisionally
and emotionally forgive the offender compared to northern European Americans; however, when
the recalled conflicts did not involve criticism, Latinx and northern European Americans forgave
9

similarly. These findings suggested that a reputation threat was less forgivable by Latinx
Americans than northern European Americans. In research comparing Turkish and Dutch
participants, Shafa and colleagues (2017) examined different types of apologies and forgiveness.
They found even after an apology, members of an honor culture (Turkey) were less likely to
forgive the offender than were members of a dignity culture. One potential reason members of an
honor culture may not be as forgiving as members of dignity cultures is forgiveness can be
harmful to one’s reputation. When members of an honor culture (Middle East) were asked what
made forgiveness difficult, they reported forgiving honor violations was risky, forgiveness could
damage one’s status, and others may see them negatively (Caluori, Dugas, Mansour, & Gelfand,
2018). This suggested that members of an honor culture may not endorse forgiveness after a
reputation threat because others would perceive them negatively (immorally); however, this has
not been empirically tested. I hypothesized that Latinx Americans would perceive a person who
forgave an offender as less moral than a person who held a grudge after a reputation threatening
situation.
Much of Western literature views revenge negatively and forgiveness positively.
McCullough (2008) argued that Western society perceives revenge to be like a disease and
forgiveness as the “cure” for this disease. This is evident when one looks for self-help books and
finds titles such as “The Forgiveness Book: Healing the Hurts We Don’t Deserve” and
“Forgiveness: The Path to Happiness” (Miller, 2017; Summerfield Kozak, 2007). When
members of a dignity culture rated different traits, they rated forgiveness as being highly related
to morality and warmth (Goodwin et al., 2014). In addition, there is no feeling of the need to
retaliate after a reputation threat as members of dignity cultures do not have a strong norm for
negative reciprocity (Leung & Cohen, 2011). Therefore, I hypothesized northern European
10

Americans would perceive a person who forgave an offender as more moral than a person who
held a grudge against the offender after a reputation threat.

Members of an honor culture may be able to forgive if their reputation has been restored
after a threat. One way to restore one’s honor is to confront the person who challenged that
honor. A study by Cohen and colleagues (1999) suggested that forgiveness may be more
appropriate after confronting the offender among members of an honor culture (Southerners of
the U.S.) than among members of a dignity culture (Northerners of the U.S.). They had a
confederate continually provoke participants throughout the study. Members of an honor culture
who blew up at the confederate were more likely to forgive than those who did not, whereas
members of a dignity culture who blew up at the confederate were less likely to forgive than
those who stayed calm. They suggested that Southerners who blew up were following a cultural
script of blowing up and reconciling afterwards while Northerners who blew up may have felt
too angry to forgive. Therefore, I hypothesized Latinx Americans would perceive a person who
forgave after confronting as more moral than a person who forgave after walking away, whereas
northern European Americans would perceive a person who forgave after confronting similarly
in morality as the person who forgave after walking away from a reputation threat.
One proposed mechanism that could explain why members of an honor culture approve
of confronting and disapprove of forgiveness in the absence of confrontation, is that members of
an honor culture want to prevent the loss of honor. Regulatory Focus Theory distinguishes two
main motivations: promotion and prevention (Higgins, 1997). Promotion Focused motivations
are aimed toward achieving gains while Prevention Focused motivations are aimed at avoiding
losses. Preventing loss of honor is an important concern among those who endorse honor values
(Leung & Cohen, 2011; Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2008). Members of an honor culture and
11

those who strongly endorse honor values tend to have higher levels of overall prevention focus,
higher levels of prevention strategies before engaging in conflict, and higher prevention focused
emotions after an honor threat compared to members of a dignity culture and those who weakly
endorse honor values (Shafa, Harinck, Ellemers, & Beersma, 2015). Therefore, prevention focus
may explain why members of an honor culture would be more likely to rate those who confront
as more moral than those who withdraw from a reputation threat. Prevention focus may also
explain why members of an honor culture would be more likely to rate those who hold a grudge
as more moral than those who forgive compared to members of a dignity culture. I hypothesized
prevention focus would explain the moderation of conflict reaction (confront and hold a grudge,
confront and forgive, withdraw and hold a grudge, vs withdraw and forgive) on the relation of
cultural group (members of honor vs dignity culture) and morality (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Hypothesized mediated moderation model of cultural grouping (members of honor vs
dignity culture) and morality.

1- Latinx Americans
0-Northern European
Americans
Prevention Focus
Morality
+
Conflict Reaction
12

Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Latinx Americans would perceive a person who confronted an offender as more
moral than a person who withdrew from a reputation threat, whereas northern European
Americans would perceive a person who confronted the offender similarly in morality as a
person who withdrew from a reputation threat.
Hypothesis 2: Latinx Americans would perceive a person who held a grudge against an offender
as more moral than a person who forgave an offender for a reputation threat, whereas northern
European Americans would perceive a person who forgave an offender as more moral than a
person who held a grudge against the offender after a reputation threat.
Hypothesis 3: Latinx Americans would perceive a person who forgave after confronting as more
moral than a person who forgave after withdrawing from a reputation threat, whereas northern
European Americans would perceive a person who forgave after confronting similarly in
morality as a person who forgave after withdrawing from a reputation threat.
Hypothesis 4: Prevention focus would explain the interaction of cultural groups (members of
honor vs dignity culture) and conflict reactions (confront and hold a grudge, confront and
forgive, withdraw and hold a grudge, vs withdraw and forgive) on perceived morality.
Research Overview
This study examined how members of an honor and dignity culture perceive
confrontation versus withdrawal and forgiveness versus holding a grudge. Participants read three
reputation-threatening scenarios with one of four alternate endings, where the protagonist either:
confronted and forgave, confronted and held a grudge, withdrew and forgave, or withdrew and
13

held a grudge. Participants rated the morality of the protagonist and completed a prevention
focus measure.
There have been few studies that have examined Latinx Americans as an honor culture;
therefore, I conducted two pilot studies in preparation for the primary study. In Pilot Study 1,
participants recalled a conflict and described the outcome of that conflict. This pilot study
explored whether there were any cultural differences in forgiveness among Latinx and northern
European Americans. The conflicts reported in the first pilot study were used to create scenarios
for the second pilot study. I created standardized scenarios in Pilot Study 2 that I used in the
primary study. Therefore, in Pilot Study 2, participants rated each scenario on multiple
dimensions such as commonness, severity, and publicness. In addition, they rated how much the
average person would retaliate and avoid the offender in the scenarios.
14

CHAPTER 3. PILOT STUDY 1
The first pilot study was intended to explore cultural differences among Latinx and
northern European Americans in conflict situations. I predicted that Latinx Americans would
forgive less than northern European Americans when recalling a conflict situation. Therefore, I
explored under what conditions forgiveness differed between Latinx and northern European
Americans. In addition, this study was conducted to generate conflict situations that could be
used in subsequent studies such as Pilot Study 2 and the current study.
Method
Participants

There were 138 students from Iowa State University who participated in this study.
Forty-nine participants self-identified as Latinx American (30 women) and 89 self-identified as
northern European American (47 women). The average age among Latinx Americans was 21.59
(SD=3.82) and 19.40 (SD=1.33) among northern European Americans. Forty-five percent of
Latinx Americans spoke English as their first language and all northern European Americans
spoke English as their first language.
Measures
Conflict content. Participants recalled an experience where they were hurt, offended, or
dishonored by another. After the study was conducted, two independent coders read these
situations and produced a list of categories to define the type of conflict recalled. The two coders
met and agreed upon the following list of categories: exclusion, norm violation, attitude
disagreement, intelligence attacked, physical attributes attacked, person character attacked, and
rude. Any conflicts that did not fit the previous seven categories were put in the “other” category.
Two additional coders used the definitions from Table 1 to categorize each conflict accordingly.
15

Cohen’s kappa was run to determine the degree of inter-rater agreement on the type of conflicts
each participant wrote about in the study. There was substantial agreement according to the
criteria of Landis and Koch (1997) between the two raters, κ = .786 (95% CI, .712 to .860), p < .001. Forgiveness measures. I used Worthington, Hook, Utsey, Williams, and Neil’s (2007) Decisional and Emotional Forgiveness scales to measure how much participants forgave the offender in the recalled conflict on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree; see Appendix A). Decisional forgiveness had eight items to measure behavioral intentions such as “If I see him or her, I will act friendly.” (αLA = .87, αNEA = .79). Emotional forgiveness had eight items to measure affect such as “I no longer feel upset when I think of him or her.” (αLA = .78, αNEA = .83). Decisional and emotional forgiveness were significantly correlated with each other, r = .707, p < .001. Although decisional and emotional forgiveness were highly related, they were expected to represent separate components of forgiveness. Decisional forgiveness is strongly associated with revenge motivation, which is consistent with the understanding of decisional forgiveness as a behavioral component of forgiveness. By contrast, emotional forgiveness is strongly associated with rumination, which is consistent with the understanding of emotional forgiveness as an affective component of forgiveness (Worthington et al.). Conflict responses. I used Tabak, McCullough, Luna, Bono, and Berry’s (2012) Transgression Appeasement and Reconciliation Checklist to measure the types of behavior the offender and the participant engaged in after the conflict. There were 19 behaviors which the offender or the participant could have enacted, such as apologize, show remorse, and start physical contact (see Appendix A). Because all these behaviors were positive, I created nine 16 additional items to explore negative behaviors such as criticizing the participant/offender, minimizing the conflict, and arguing with the participant/offender (see Appendix A). Demographics. Participants filled out basic demographic questions such as age, sex, and ethnicity. Also, participants provided information about high school location and past dwellings. This information was used to determine if participants could be identified as a Northerner (a member of a dignity culture) or Southerner (a member of an honor culture) according to Cohen and colleagues’ (1996) definition. Participants indicated their parents’ education, perceived socioeconomic status, the ruralness of their upbringing, and religiosity. Participants who self- identified as Latinx answered additional questions regarding their primary language, language skills, country of origin, time in the U.S., and parents’ ethnicity and state/country of origin. These questions were asked to gauge the level of acculturation. See Appendix A for specific demographic questions that were asked. Procedure Participants completed an online study, in which, they recalled an experience where they were hurt, offended, or dishonored by another. Participants were encouraged to write in the language they were most comfortable using (Spanish or English). After writing about the transgression, they wrote about the outcome of the conflict. Next, they reported on their conflict experience on several dimensions: their relationship with the offender (parent, sibling, aunt/uncle, grandparent, friend, acquaintance, stranger, co-worker, classmate, other), the closeness of the relationship (using the inclusion of other scale; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992), severity of the transgression (1-not at all severe to 7 -extremely severe), how many people witnessed the transgression (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7+), and how long ago in months it took place. Participants selected all the behaviors the offender engaged in after the conflict and all the 17 behaviors they themselves engaged in after the conflict from the list of conflict responses. Also, participants wrote in any other behaviors that were not mentioned that the offender or they themselves engaged in after the transgression. Then participants completed the decisional and emotional forgiveness scales with reference to their current relationship with the offender. Also, participants completed additional measures of honor values, inalienable worth, self-construal, self-esteem, and demographics. None of these scales significantly correlated with decisional or emotional forgiveness; therefore, they are not reported below. Results and Discussion I first examined the types of situations reported by the two groups of participants. Latinx Americans recalled situations that were most often about exclusion, rude offenders, and offenders who attacked their personal character. Northern European Americans were most likely to recall situations that were about norm violations, attacks on their person character, and attacks on their physical attributes. Specific frequencies and other conflict categories are reported in Table 1. The results suggested that Latinx and northern European Americans recalled similar types of conflicts. Although both groups experienced conflicts related to exclusion, Latinx Americans recalled significantly more exclusion related conflicts, z = 3.564, p < .001. One reason that might explain this difference was that Latinx Americans at Iowa State University only made up 4.72% of the student population at the time of the study (Iowa State University, 2017). In addition, the Latinx Americans exclusion conflicts were generally about racism and race-related issues while northern European American exclusion conflicts were about being left out of friend groups or being treated unfairly because of one’s associated with a fraternity or sorority.