粗鲁还是直率?从潜在的冒犯行为中推断荣誉、尊严和自发特质

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Ceren Günsoy , Irmak Olcaysoy Okten , A. Demaske
{"title":"粗鲁还是直率?从潜在的冒犯行为中推断荣誉、尊严和自发特质","authors":"Ceren Günsoy ,&nbsp;Irmak Olcaysoy Okten ,&nbsp;A. Demaske","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>To restore their reputation, people from honor cultures (e.g., U.S. South) are more likely than people from dignity cultures (e.g., U.S. North) to retaliate against conflict partners who insult them. If a conflict partner does not insult them, however, they are more polite than dignity culture individuals, so that they don't provoke the person unnecessarily. Previous research has not examined the implicit person perception phase in these interactions. In this research, we focused on spontaneous trait inferences (STIs) that people can make from others' potentially offensive behaviors. In four studies (<em>n</em> = 1126), we tested whether being from a U.S. honor or dignity culture or the endorsement of these values was associated with hostile and nonhostile STIs, and whether honor and dignity influenced the relationship between STIs and behavioral intentions. In Study 1 and 2, honor culture participants made both types of STIs, whereas dignity culture participants only made hostile STIs. Study 3 revealed a positive association between individual honor endorsement and nonhostile STIs. In Study 4, we replicated most of these results and also found a positive association between hostile STIs and confrontation intentions in the honor (but not dignity) group. These results suggest that people from honor (vs. dignity) cultures tend to make rather simultaneous inferences of hostile and nonhostile traits from potentially offensive behaviors and making spontaneous hostile inferences can be more consequential for them. This research highlights the complexity of culture's influence on interpersonal processes and can have implications for diverse social contexts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rude or just blunt? Honor, dignity, and spontaneous trait inferences from potentially offensive behaviors\",\"authors\":\"Ceren Günsoy ,&nbsp;Irmak Olcaysoy Okten ,&nbsp;A. Demaske\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104617\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>To restore their reputation, people from honor cultures (e.g., U.S. South) are more likely than people from dignity cultures (e.g., U.S. North) to retaliate against conflict partners who insult them. If a conflict partner does not insult them, however, they are more polite than dignity culture individuals, so that they don't provoke the person unnecessarily. Previous research has not examined the implicit person perception phase in these interactions. In this research, we focused on spontaneous trait inferences (STIs) that people can make from others' potentially offensive behaviors. In four studies (<em>n</em> = 1126), we tested whether being from a U.S. honor or dignity culture or the endorsement of these values was associated with hostile and nonhostile STIs, and whether honor and dignity influenced the relationship between STIs and behavioral intentions. In Study 1 and 2, honor culture participants made both types of STIs, whereas dignity culture participants only made hostile STIs. Study 3 revealed a positive association between individual honor endorsement and nonhostile STIs. In Study 4, we replicated most of these results and also found a positive association between hostile STIs and confrontation intentions in the honor (but not dignity) group. These results suggest that people from honor (vs. dignity) cultures tend to make rather simultaneous inferences of hostile and nonhostile traits from potentially offensive behaviors and making spontaneous hostile inferences can be more consequential for them. This research highlights the complexity of culture's influence on interpersonal processes and can have implications for diverse social contexts.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48441,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000295\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000295","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了恢复名誉,荣誉文化(如美国南方)的人比尊严文化(如美国北方)的人更有可能对侮辱他们的冲突伙伴进行报复。然而,如果冲突伙伴没有侮辱他们,他们会比尊严文化的人更有礼貌,以免不必要地激怒对方。以前的研究没有考察过这些互动中的隐性人际感知阶段。在这项研究中,我们重点研究了人们从他人的潜在冒犯行为中做出的自发特质推断(STI)。在四项研究(n = 1126)中,我们测试了来自美国荣誉或尊严文化或对这些价值观的认可是否与敌意和非敌意的 STI 相关,以及荣誉和尊严是否会影响 STI 与行为意向之间的关系。在研究 1 和研究 2 中,荣誉文化参与者做出了两种类型的性传播感染,而尊严文化参与者只做出了敌意性传播感染。研究 3 表明,个人荣誉认可与非敌意性传播感染之间存在正相关。在研究 4 中,我们重复了上述大部分结果,并发现在荣誉(而非尊严)组中,敌意性传播感染与对抗意向之间存在正相关。这些结果表明,来自荣誉(与尊严)文化的人倾向于同时从潜在的冒犯行为中推断出敌意和非敌意特征,而自发地做出敌意推断可能会对他们造成更大的影响。这项研究凸显了文化对人际交往过程影响的复杂性,并可能对不同的社会环境产生影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rude or just blunt? Honor, dignity, and spontaneous trait inferences from potentially offensive behaviors

To restore their reputation, people from honor cultures (e.g., U.S. South) are more likely than people from dignity cultures (e.g., U.S. North) to retaliate against conflict partners who insult them. If a conflict partner does not insult them, however, they are more polite than dignity culture individuals, so that they don't provoke the person unnecessarily. Previous research has not examined the implicit person perception phase in these interactions. In this research, we focused on spontaneous trait inferences (STIs) that people can make from others' potentially offensive behaviors. In four studies (n = 1126), we tested whether being from a U.S. honor or dignity culture or the endorsement of these values was associated with hostile and nonhostile STIs, and whether honor and dignity influenced the relationship between STIs and behavioral intentions. In Study 1 and 2, honor culture participants made both types of STIs, whereas dignity culture participants only made hostile STIs. Study 3 revealed a positive association between individual honor endorsement and nonhostile STIs. In Study 4, we replicated most of these results and also found a positive association between hostile STIs and confrontation intentions in the honor (but not dignity) group. These results suggest that people from honor (vs. dignity) cultures tend to make rather simultaneous inferences of hostile and nonhostile traits from potentially offensive behaviors and making spontaneous hostile inferences can be more consequential for them. This research highlights the complexity of culture's influence on interpersonal processes and can have implications for diverse social contexts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology publishes original research and theory on human social behavior and related phenomena. The journal emphasizes empirical, conceptually based research that advances an understanding of important social psychological processes. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical analyses, and methodological comments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信