Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
♦
University
By
Acknowledgements
This Master’s thesis is the accumulation of over three years of research. It feels really
amazing to have reached this important milestone. I would like to take this
opportunity to thank a number of individuals who helped make this experience
possible.
I would also like to thank the rest of my thesis committee: Professor Steven
Stemler and Professor Clara Wilkins, for their interest in my research and their
thought-provoking feedback. It was an honor to be in your classes and to be touched
by your passion and devotion to research and to your students.
vi
In addition, I would like to extend my gratitude to Faisal Saleem for
collecting the data in Pakistan. Although I did not have the pleasure of working with
you, your contribution to this thesis is tremendous. Additional thanks to Mattie
Liskow and Leah Lucid for helping with content analysis and to the Wesleyan Writing
Workshop for editing assistance.
I am also grateful for my dear friends whose wholehearted support and good
cheer have made my thesis experience a manageable one. I especially want to thank
Edith Li for her unwavering love and care. Thank you for always being there through
my emotional ups and downs, for your surprise Easter visit, and for your untiring
online companionship through sleepless nights. To my fellow thesis beast and
colleague, Tasmiha Khan: thank you for persistently pushing me and keeping my
spirits high. I treasure the nights we worked too late, our crazed conversations, and
how we always managed to keep each other sane (and occasionally freak out
together) from the beginning until the very end. To Mikako Tai: thank you for your
invaluable advice as a thesis veteran and, more importantly, for our fierce friendship
that provided me endless laughs and uplifting.
Finally, I dedicate this thesis to my family, particularly Auntie, who has been
my #1 fan since as long as I can remember. Thank you for your unconditional love
and unfaltering faith that I would do wonderfully, even when you did not really know
what I was writing about. Your enduring compassion for family has been an
instrumental inspiration for this thesis.
*
*
*
“At times our own light goes out and is rekindled by a spark from another person.
Each of us has cause to think with deep gratitude of those who have lighted the flame
within us.”
-Albert Schweitzer
vii
Abstract
Families from different cultures emphasize varying sets of values. For example,
family honor is a collectivistic value that is more prominent in Pakistani culture than
in European American culture. It refers to the family’s collective social identity, and
is determined by the value and status of one’s family in the eyes of others. In the
present study, we compared the meaning of one’s family devaluation (e.g., an insult)
in these two cultures that vary in honor orientation. Particularly, we asked 113
then took measures of their appraisals (cognitive evaluations), emotional feelings, and
social consequences pertaining to the devaluation. Results showed that one’s family
devaluation had more negative emotional and social consequences for the honor-
oriented Pakistani than for the less honor-oriented European American participants.
viii
Table of Contents
ix
Introduction
The family is both the fundamental unit of society as well as the root of
culture. It is a perpetual source of encouragement, advocacy, assurance,
and emotional refueling that empowers a child to venture with confidence
into the greater world and to become all that he can be.
-‐ Marianne E. Neifert
Psychological Models of the Family
Families are the foundation of society and of culture – they are the first places
where we gain our sense of self and of the world. One of the earliest working
includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved
sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually
cohabiting adults” (Murdock, 1949, p. 2). This definition portrays the family
composed of a nuclear family system - two parents and one or more children - and
important social functions like shared lodging and economic benefits (Georgas,
Berry, van de Vijver, Kagitcibasi & Poortinga, 2006). Nonetheless, this popular view
families in the present societies. By all means, families across the world are finding
themselves different from each other, as well as from their previous generations in
Most notably, families from different cultures manifest family portraits that
comprise a vast array of family types around the world. The family portrait,
figuratively speaking, refers to the description of the family with its various elements
interpersonal psychology (Georgas et al., 2006). For example, families in the United
States and Europe traditionally resemble the nuclear family structure with two parents
2
and children. In particular, Ellwood and Jencks (2002) noted that families in the
United States are in fact on the rise to becoming more nuclear with the rapid increase
family, where grandparents, parents and children co-habit in a typical household. The
variations in families.
Because the family is an integral part of society, family changes are inherently
tied to changes in social and cultural factors (e.g., values, norms) in the societies in
vs. psychological elements of the family), she found that culture has a major
and interdependence emphasized in the familial context. Culture is the shared values,
practices and norms of a community (Heine, 2010). Despite controlling for the effect
The findings from these studies emphasized culture as the most important
3
two types of self-construals thereby stress different degrees of separateness and
the family. This means, in families that emphasize separateness, family members are
“we-self” in the family and view interpersonal relationships as more fluid than do
rely on each other for support and help as they form intimate and cohesive bonds.
interpersonal relations. This family model is pertinent to many parts of “the Majority
World”, which applies to the majority of the world’s population outside of the
1996, 2007). In this family model, due to the group-based structure of agricultural
work, family members including those of the extended family depend on each other
for income and work. As part of a culture of relatedness, this family model also
members count on each other for help and for psychological comfort. Younger
4
generations bear the responsibility of providing for the older generations. For
example, younger generations are expected to take care of parents, and grandparents.
Additionally, parents nurture the emotional interdependency between children and the
previous family model highlights intimate familial bonds at both the material and
psychological separateness in the familial context. In this case, family members rarely
rely on each other. Accordingly, there is no need for the younger generations to
provide for the older generations. In addition, due to the fact that family members’
work and incomes are mostly separate, family bonds are loosely maintained. With a
permissive parenting style, parents encourage children to find their own voices and
build an independent sense of self. This family model therefore results in the
formation of the separate self in the familial context, where family members maintain
more clear-cut boundaries with each other. For instance, it is common to observe a
moderate level of privacy maintained between family members, evident in the nuclear
family and to a greater degree in the extended family. The following quote depicts the
aspect of separateness in this family type: “My family seems like an archipelago. We
5
are part of the same group, but we are still islands – separate and alone” (The
Descendants, 2011).
currently undergo socioeconomic development. Despite the fact that this family
overlap with those in the previous two family models. In this family model, because
However, although family members manage their work and incomes independently,
such material independence does not lead to psychological independence like it does
in the previous model. In fact, the culture of relatedness in which this family model is
bonds with each other, and they look to one another as a major source of emotional
support. These strong bonds between family members also manifest in high familial
loyalty as members view the family unit as a wholesome and integrated entity.
parents in this family model socialize children and young adults to be emotionally
invested in their elders as well as their future children. Hence, individuals in this
6
family model often develop the self-construal as the autonomous-related self - while
individuals fulfill the need for agency, they also esteem interpersonal communion,
third family model with the combination of material independence and emotional
and functions of family. Even as family members cease to depend on each other for
work, they cherish the intimate interpersonal bonds emphasized in their cultures.
cultures of separateness and relatedness prove to be the continuing forces that shape
other psychologists. For instance, Georgas and colleagues (2006) conducted a series
family structures and functions across the world. They covered nations with different
Ghana, India, Japan, Pakistan, Ukraine, and the United States, etc. Specifically, they
utilized historical data to investigate the extent to which cultural and sociopolitical
7
educational system, and religion) impact families, as expressed through family
structures, family roles, and psychological values like emotional bonds, self-
consistent with the family models proposed by Kagitcibasi (1996, 2007). For
instance, emotional bonds within the family were found to be universal in all the
the Western societies and visits to relatives in the Majority World. The most
in the Western societies. Particularly, young adults in rural areas of the Majority
World depend on their families financially and emotionally as they share work as
well as an intimate emotional bond. Nonetheless, young adults in rural areas of the
reciprocity, parents encourage such material independence, but support, though not
necessarily oblige, their children’s emotional attachment to the family. Such dynamic
provides evidence to the theory of the cultural diversity of family - although families
across the world might share similarities in their sociopolitical circumstances, familial
8
Another line of evidence for the cultural diversity of family is supported by a
number of Value of Children studies (i.e., VOC studies). These studies examined the
offspring in a family sheds light on childrearing goals and, more extensively, family
China, France, India, Indonesia, Israel, Korea, and South Africa advanced analogous
children’s economic benefit decreases as they are no longer expected to provide for
their parents, their psychological value (i.e., joy, happiness, companionship, and other
industrialization in the last decade, the important cultural value of cohesive familial
bonds prevailed to be significant in childbearing and parenting (Kim, Park, Kwon, &
Koo, 2005; Mishra, Mayer, Trommsdorff, Albert, & Schwartz, 2005; Sabetier &
Lannergrand-Willems, 2005; Sam, Peltzer, & Mayer, 2005; Suckow, 2005; Zheng,
States also provide supportive evidence for the cultural influence on the family.
(Koutrelakos, 2004), and three generations of Hispanic Americans (Perez & Padilla,
9
shows that while second-generational immigrants (e.g., Greek Americans, Hispanic
their home cultures of relatedness in the familial context. That is, adolescents from
and self-reliant (i.e., American individualistic values), yet they treasure a high degree
familiasm among Hispanic Americans and the willingness to sacrifice for one’s
Thus far, I have discussed one set of cultural variations that has been
consistently demonstrated to shape families across the world. The varying cultures of
separateness and relatedness in the familial context are significant markers that signal
value that places great importance on reputation, and one of its eminent values
concerns the protection of the family reputation, namely, family honor. Certainly, the
significance of family honor has important implications for many aspects of families
in cultures that adhere to honor, which manifest in familial structure, functions, and
VOC study in rural Turkey, she remarked that while families adopt the family system
10
degree of family honor, which predisposes extensive social and emotional
strong family ties, social harmony, and interdependence. However, what makes
reflective of others. That means, honor takes two forms: personal honor and collective
honor (Pitt-Rivers, 1965, 1977, Rodriguez Mosquera, Manstead, & Fischer, 2002a).
Thus, one’s dishonorable conduct not only reflects poorly on oneself, it reflects
poorly on the other members of one’s group. Similarly, the group’s loss of honor
reputation, along with that of the group (Fischer et al., 1999). In honor-oriented
11
and it is achieved in the following four important domains: masculine honor,
al., 2002a).
al., 2002a; Rodriguez Mosquera, Manstead, & Fischer, 2002b; Rodriguez Mosquera,
2011). A man’s honor, masculine honor, is stressed by strength, toughness, and most
importantly, the responsibility to protect one’s family honor (Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle,
& Schwarz, 1996; Rodriguez Mosquera, et al., 2002a, 2004, 2011). In other words, a
man must appear to be strong and capable of defend his manhood, his own honor, and
Alternatively, feminine honor emphasizes values and norms important for the
practice chastity, modesty (Rodriguez Mosquera, 2011), and obedience to the male
figures in the family (Vandello & Cohen, 2003; Vandello, Cohen, Grandon, &
Franiuk, 2009). Moreover, the feminine honor of female family members has
important implications for the family’s honor. Since family honor is protected mostly
members of the family are expected to carefully guard their behaviors to maintain the
family’s reputation.
12
Families in honor-oriented cultures sustain structures and functions that are
intimately associated with the core cultural value of family honor. Being concerned
with family honor implies being concerned with the social evaluation of one’s family.
the family, namely, its social reputation, is reflective both of the family unit and of
the individual family members (Peristiany, 1965; Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002a,
2002b, 2004). In other words, there is a strong interdependence between personal and
family honor. As Rodriguez Mosquera et al. (2002b) put it, “The family’s collective
reputation is a reflection of the reputation of its individual members, while the status
of the family’s honor is shared by each family member. This strong interdependence
between one’s own and one’s family’s honor means that one is dependent on the
actions of one’s intimates and how they are evaluated” (p. 147). Thus, individuals are
presumed to maintain and protect the family honor by acting in accordance with
honor codes and enforcing them amongst other family members. These honor codes
community.
Moreover, family members are trusted to defend the family against any threats
that might undermine its honor. For instance, insults and offences are major sources
Rodriguez Mosquera et al. (2002b, 2004, 2008) showed that when honor-oriented
individuals perceive an insult that devalues their reputation or that of their family,
13
they feel intense negative emotions because they evaluate the incident very
negative social judgment of the family readily dismissed. In essence, family honor
centers on the maintenance and protection of the family’s positive social standing in
the eyes of others, and it is often ensured via the avoidance of dishonor.
of family honor promotes interpersonal closeness between the individual and the
social interdependence and the culture of relatedness. Despite that nuclear families in
urban areas may live in separate households, they often reside near their extended
family to create a tight-knit family network. This way, members from the nuclear and
extended family frequently partake in shared family events, have close contact with
each other and treasure a high degree of emotional interdependence and support with
Social interdependence characterizes a set of values and norms that are essential in
the maintenance of social bonds and interpersonal harmony. This includes the values
culture, Spain denoted that honor is closely associated with family and social
14
interdependence (Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002a). Specifically, concerns for
personal integrity (i.e. being loyal to one’s own values and principles) had been
(Peristiany, 1965).
bonds and the culture of relatedness, with a unique emphasis on family honor. Family
honor encapsulates the family’s reputation in the private and public eyes, and it
translates into a strong interdependence between the individuals and the family as
their family honor and manage their behaviors in accordance with social norms and
honor codes, such as codes of morality and gender-specific expectations to avoid any
dishonor. Individuals also bare the responsibility of defending the family honor
its psychological meaning, through studies that examined the loss of honor. Situations
of loss are especially suitable for studying honor, because they elicit intense concerns
Clore & Collins, 1988, p. 29). Nonetheless, emotions are not only the feelings we
15
or aspects. Specifically, emotions are elicited by the appraisal (cognitive evaluation)
of an important antecedent, and then often give rise to, though not in every case,
action tendencies such as behavioral impulses (Ortony, Clore & Collins, 1988).
Our emotions are selective, since not everything in our environment arouses
an emotional reaction, much less the same emotional reaction between two
Clore, & Collins, 1988; Scherer, Schorr, & Johnstone, 2001), they are highly
incongruent, respectively; Smith & Lazarus, 1993). For instance, victors of a game
feel joy because they appraise the outcome of the game as desirable, while losers feel
frustration and sadness because they appraise the outcome as undesirable (Ortony,
In the way that our emotions arise from our appraisals of the event, our
appraisals are guided by our values and concerns. Indeed, we are most emotional
toward the things we care about. As our values and concerns are shaped within our
society and culture, they are the core of our cognitive interpretations of events and
16
concerns”. Relational concerns stem from culturally relevant values, and they are
different appraisals regarding the same event, from one culture to another. For
instance, an event that advances or threatens family honor is a core emotional event in
not so much in an individualistic culture that places less emphasis on the honor of
one’s family (Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2004). Thus, such event should elicit more
feelings, behavioral impulses, and motivational tendencies) that arise from our
subjective evaluations of an event, which are driven and shaped by our culturally
significant concerns. Emotions not only represent how we feel, they also serve a
social function – they communicate reactions that signal socially valued or sanctioned
events within a societal or cultural system (Averill, 1983). Taken together, emotions
provoke intense negative emotions. In particular, previous research shows that when
confronted with threats relevant for honor reputation, individuals from high honor-
17
oriented and low honor-oriented cultures feel intense anger and shame (Cohen et al.,
1996; Ijzerman, van Dijk, & Gallucci, 2007; Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002b,
2008).
negative social interactions. We often feel angry when we perceive to suffer from
someone else’s misdeed, such as when the actions of others interfere with our welfare
and plans (Shaver, Schqartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987). With the other-blame
focus, feelings of anger are often documented to give rise to fight-or-flight bodily
sensations and antagonistic impulses (Averill, 1982, 1983; Evers, Fischer, Rodriguez
Mosquera, & Manstead, 2005; Fischer, Rodriguez Mosquera, van Vianen, &
Manstead, 2004; Smith & Lazarus, 1993). As told by a common metaphor of anger,
an angry person is often “boiling with anger”, and that “anger is a hot fluid in a
a better outcome, such as a confrontation or retribution (de Rivera & Grinkis, 1986;
Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989; Kuppens, Van Mechelen, Smits, & De Boeck,
Averill (1983), despite the fact that the majority of individuals feel the impulse to
antagonize when they are angry, they typically channel their anger via less aggressive
ways, like talking about the incident with a neutral party or calmly discussing it with
impulses and behaviors to bring about better outcomes when others do us wrong.
18
Unlike anger, which is an other-focused emotion, shame belongs to the family
based on the appraisal of the flawed self, and its components of “self-anger” and
Tangney & Fischer, 1995; Tangney, Miller, Flicker, & Barlow, 1996). For instance,
makes us feel tarnished, unworthy, like a statue that has sat in the rain until worn and
dull” (Zabel, 2005). However, recent research has shown that this view of shame is
not a universal one (Fischer et al., 1999; Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002a, 2002b,
2004, 2008). Given that shame is a complex emotion based on the evaluation of self,
its experience and expression are subjected to cultural variations of self-concept. For
cultures. Because shame communicates one’s weakness, flawed self, and low self-
such as sadness (Finkenauer & Rimé, 1998; Lewis, 2000; Rodriguez Mosquera et al.,
2008; Smith, Webster, Parrott, & Eyre, 2002; Tangney, 1992; Tangney & Dearing,
19
On the other hand, research pertaining to honor submits that shame is in fact a
highly socially valued emotion in cultures where honor is salient (Fischer et al., 1999;
Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2000, 2002a, 2002b, 2004, 2008). This is because shame
conveys to others one’s recognition of one’s flaws and incompetence and, more
Mosquera et al. (2008) posits that feelings of shame are intimately tied to the
response to events denoting to dishonor, the recognition of the damaged social image
via experiences of shame empowers one to respond to the threat, in order to restore
“moral virtue”, and that “having a sense of shame” is a respected inner disposition
that demonstrates one’s commitment to the maintenance of one’s honor and family
Further, this positive view of shame has also been emphasized by Gausel and Leach’s
(2011) conceptual model of shame. Gausel and Leach argue that when faced with a
moral transgression, if an individual perceives that the part of the responsible self is
modifiable to bring on a better outcome, for instance one’s honor, one is likely to be
20
The research literature on honor demonstrates that an event pertaining to the
reduction of one’s honor elicits intense anger and shame in both honor-oriented as
well as less honor-oriented cultures. First, Cohen et al. (1996) and Ijzerman et al.
(2007) found that honor-oriented individuals react to affronts with more anger than
participants reported feeling greater intensity of anger than the less honor-oriented
Rodriguez Mosquera et al. (2002b, 2004) asked participants with varying degrees of
vignettes of verbal insult targeted at a certain aspect of honor. The content of the
verbal insults included insults targeted at three aspects of honor: family honor (an
insult portraying the disgracefulness of a family member), masculine honor (an insult
feminine honor (an insult criticizing one’s sexual shame1). Their findings were also
consistent with the previous discussion on the cultural variations of anger and shame.
participants reported high levels of anger because they perceived the insults as an
1
Sexual shame describes a central ideal for feminine honor – female chastity. In honor-
oriented cultures, women are expected to dress discretely and practice restraint in sexual
relations prior to marriage. Because behaviors pertaining to sexual shame are an important
determinant of the status of the family, a lack of sexual shame in female relatives effectively
lead to the loss of family honor (Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002b)
21
unfair mistreatment. In addition to anger, Spanish participants also reported they
would feel high levels of shame while their Dutch counterparts reported they would
feel little to moderate levels of it. To put emotional ratings into meaning, not only did
the insults offend the honor-oriented participants as shown by their high ratings of
anger, but also they effectively damaged the participants’ self-images and social-
the reported emotional intensities. This was particularly significant for the
devaluation of family honor. The more the participants adhered to honor, the more
anger and shame they felt in situations where their family honor was injured. In fact,
vignettes portraying a damaged family honor elicited the most intense anger and
posing injuries to their family honor also subsequently led to injuries to their self-
esteem. Because family reputation and self-concept are interdependent in cultures that
motivational behaviors behind anger and shame between cultures that varied in
emotional responses. Anger led to verbal attack amongst all participants, which was
22
consistent with the retributive motivations of anger – wanting to punish, reprimand,
or antagonize the wrongdoer. Again, shame was moderated by honor, and led to two
different types of behavioral outcomes between the two cultural groups. On one hand,
correcting the negative views of others, one could effectively restore one’s honor. In
contrast, shame prompted withdrawal among the less honor-oriented ethnic Dutch, as
shame is linked to the impulses to hide and retreat in individualistic cultures (see also
often felt with intense feelings of anger and shame. Anger is based on the appraisal of
confront the wrongdoer. On the other hand, shame varies across cultures. While
concern for social image in honor-oriented cultures, particularly the concern for
family honor (i.e., family’s social image). There are two lines of evidence for the
situations of devaluation. First, concern for family honor has been shown to positively
and significantly correlate with intensity of anger and shame in response to affronts.
That is, the more one is concerned with family honor, the angrier and more shame
one feels when one perceives one’s family being put down. Second, concern for
family honor also has important implications for self-concept (i.e., self-esteem) in
23
cultures where honor is salient. Specifically, threats to one’s family honor have been
The present study was motivated by the significant impacts of family honor on
24
Overview of Present Study
devaluation (i.e., situations where an individual’s family’s worth was reduced), and
the emotional and psychological consequences of the devaluation. The research was
carried out among university students living in two countries with differing
maintenance of a family izzat, which translates to family honor (Georgas et al., 2006).
Family structure is highly hierarchical and sex roles are well defined. The typical
family structure in Pakistan is one resembling the extended families, which generally
include three generations with grandparents, parents, and their unmarried siblings. As
elders, interpersonal harmony, and mutual interdependence (Stewart, Bond, Deeds, &
Chung, 1999; Stewart, Bond, Ho, Zaman, Dar, & Anwar, 2000). More prominently,
family members are socialized from a young age to value the maintenance of a family
izzat (honor) and a positive social image, i.e., social approval from neighbors and
friends (Stewart, Bond, Zaman, McBridge-Chang, Rao & Fielding, 1999). Therefore,
English-based schools and through the media, students reveal that they make their
25
family traditions a priority through, for instance, the creation of strong family bonds
individualism and independence, with less emphasis on honor. Families are typically
recent decades (Ellwood & Jencks, 2002). The self-construal in the U.S. stresses
“self-contained individualism”, which signifies a clear boundary between the self and
the others (Kagitcibasi, 2007). This concept also applies to the familial context. For
less intimate than those in Pakistan. Interpersonal relationships form and part on the
basis of free will, so it is not uncommon to consider friends as family, or detach from
important values in this culture are assertiveness, autonomy, and competence. Thus,
one’s success and reputation are less connected to the success and reputation of one’s
family than in collectivistic cultures. In other words, given the construal of a separate
self and the fluid construction of family in this culture, one’s self-image exhibits less
relation with one’s social image, and even less so with the social image of one’s
(Kagitcibasi, 2007).
26
The present study examined the similarities and differences in emotional
these two cultures: Pakistani culture where honor is s salient value, and American
culture where honor is a less salient value. We asked participants from these two
cultures to disclose a recent event in which their family has been devalued (i.e., the
Examining the group membership of the person who devalued one’s family is novel,
as previous studies have not looked at this important aspect of the social context.
the family.
family’s social image), emotional feelings (e.g., anger and shame), and relationship
to maintain the relationship with the person who devalued the family, and a desire to
distance from said person). Finally, we measured the concern for family honor, in
order to verify that family honor is indeed more significant among the Pakistani
participants than among the European American participants, and also because it is an
responses.
27
Hypotheses
Participants from both cultural groups should have negative appraisal of the
events because their families were put down unfairly. However, we expected
Pakistani participants to be more concerned with family honor, and therefore evaluate
the family devaluation more negatively (Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002a, 2002b,
2004).
from both cultural groups should feel intense anger because of their negative
high levels of shame through their concern for social image (Rodriguez Mosquera et
al., 2008). Alternatively, European American participants should feel lower levels of
shame because devaluation to the family has less implication for the self and their
Pakistani participants should feel overall higher intensities of both anger and shame,
because an event of family devaluation has more adverse implications in their culture.
responsible for the devaluation of their family (Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2000).
distance from the person who devalued their family. In contrast, we anticipated that
28
European American participants should express more of a desire to maintain their
relationship with the person who devalued their family, given the less severe social
29
Methods
Participants
Pakistani (72 females, 38 males, 3 undisclosed) and 139 European American (67
recruited from Wesleyan University, United States. All Pakistani participants self-
identified as Pakistanis as they were born in Pakistan, and their parents were also
born in Pakistan. In like manner, European American participants were all born in the
U.S., and self-identified as European Americans. The average ages were 22 years old
for the Pakistani participants and 19 years old for the European American
participants.
Measures
participant to recall and describe a recent episode in which his or her family had been
of the devaluation. Half of the participants from each cultural group was randomly
assigned to the in-group condition where they were asked to recall a devaluation that
occurred within the family: “Please think of a recent situation in which a member of
your family did or said something that devalued your family.” Alternatively, the other
30
half of the participants was randomly assigned to the out-group condition where they
were asked to recall a devaluation that occurred outside of the family: “Please think
of a recent situation in which somebody you know (a person who is not a stranger but
orientations. All of these measures asked participants about their experiences of their
families’ devaluation at the time they answered the survey. We selected this
(e.g., guessing errors), and it gathers insight on how much past experiences of family
The appraisal items were presented with the prompt, “Do you think that what
the person said or did…” followed by a list of appraisal items. We examined three
immorality (4 items, e.g., “is untruthful”), and appraisals of threat to family’s social
image (2 items, e.g., “damages your family’s name in the community”). Participants
rated each appraisal item on a 7-point scale from (1) not at all to (7) very much.
Next, we asked participants how they felt regarding what the other person said
“annoyed”), and shame (3 items, e.g., “ashamed”). Participants rated their emotional
31
Additionally, we assessed participants’ willingness to maintain or distance
from their relationships with the person. Participants were presented with a list of five
items to indicate their desire to maintain (2 items, e.g., “I still care about this
ranging from (1) not at all to (7) very much. The questionnaire is included in
The second part of the questionnaire consisted of a short family honor scale in
honor scale developed by Rodriguez Mosquera, et al. (2002a). This scale measures
the importance given to the protection of one’s family’s reputation. Participants were
asked, “how bad would you feel about yourself...” if they were to engage in a series of
behaviors and reputations that violate their family honor (12 items, e.g., “if you did
not defend yourself when others insult you?”). Participants reported the extent to
which they disagree or agree on a 7-point scale, ranging from (1) strongly disagree to
(7) strongly agree. A sample of the family honor scale is included in Appendix B for
reference.
32
Procedure
and European American participants filled in the measures in English and in small
group sessions where they were individually seated. European American participants
completed the study for credit as required in their introductory Psychology course.
33
Results
There were 252 narratives of family devaluation (i.e., one narrative per
participant). Given this large number of narratives, content analyses were carried out
by three (rather than only two) trained, independent coders. The goal of the bottom-
themes of family devaluation. First, each coder read all the narratives and created a
set of preliminary response categories. The response categories were direct reflections
of the situations the participants described in their narratives. Next, the three sets of
response categories independently created by each coder were compared with each
other. Only a few disagreements emerged (less than 5%), which were resolved
through discussion. The three preliminary sets of response categories were integrated
into a final coding system. Subsequently, all narratives were coded again by one of
Each narrative was coded with its unique theme. Then narratives sharing a
common and broader theme were combined to form a category. For instance, one
participant reported the following devaluation: “A friend said to me, ‘you are related
to a backward family.’” This narrative was coded as an insult to the family collective,
Accordingly, other narratives that insulted the family collective were coded into this
34
category. Finally, the three coders evaluated, compared, and contrasted the categories
from the two cultural groups to look for similarities and differences.
and their frequencies per cultural group. Four types of devaluation described a
insult to the family collective (e.g. being called related to a backward family); insult to
individual family member (e.g. a friend calling participant’s mother crazy); challenges
to cognitive competence (e.g. hearing others suggest that a family member was not
motivated enough to achieve goals in life); and prejudicial remarks (e.g. being made
fun of based on one’s caste and ethnic heritage). In particular, Pakistani participants
reported twice as many narratives of insults to the family collective than the European
Otherwise, participants from both cultural groups reported similar frequencies of the
moral violations that damaged their family’s name. Participants submitted narratives
2
We compared Pakistani and European American emotional reactions for each category.
Across categories, the Pakistani participants had stronger emotional responses to family
devaluation than the European-America participants. Thus, the results presenting in the thesis
do not vary by category.
35
of relationship issues (e.g. inappropriate relationships in which a family member was
socially deviant behaviors (e.g. a family member obtaining a career that violated a
permission) that devalued the family reputation. As can be seen in Table 1, the
counterparts. Both cultural groups reported similar numbers for the other types of
While the majority of the narratives submitted by the two cultural groups
to one kind of emic (i.e., culturally specific) devaluation. In particular, they described
instances where a family member expressed a desire to distance him or herself from
the family, and they specified this desire to be a devaluing mark for their family.
Alternatively, Pakistani participants did not report any narratives with similar content.
Sample narratives of the different family devaluation categories per cultural group
36
TABLE 1
which an item is interpreted in the same way across cultural groups. Equivalent
equivalence (van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). To test the equivalence of factorial
structures, we carried out exploratory factor analyses both within each cultural group
and separately for each measure. These analyses were performed on all measures,
37
including the family honor scale. The analyses yielded equivalent factorial structures
for the two samples and all measures (i.e., same number of factors with the same
items in each factor and similar loadings). Cronbach alpha’s computed separately for
each cultural group and for all measures were typically higher than .70 or .80, with all
items of the family honor scale, with culture and biological sex as independent
variables. The multivariate main effects of culture and biological sex were
statistically significant, F (1, 245) = 5.98, p = .015, η2partial = .02, and F (1, 245) =
12.66, p < .001, η2partial = .05, respectively. The Pakistani participants showed a
greater adherence to family honor (adjM = 5.95, SE = .11), than the European
American participants (adjM = 5.60, SE = .09). This finding was consistent with our
theoretical foundation that Pakistani culture places heavier emphasis on family honor
important to the female participants (adjM = 6.03, SE = .09), than the male participants
Furthermore, the main effects of culture and biological sex were qualified by a
significant interaction, F (1, 245) = 12.67, p < .001, η2partial = .05. While female and
38
male European American participants expressed similar degree of adherence to
family honor (adjM = 5.60, SE = .13; adjM = 5.60, SE = .13), female Pakistani
= .13) than the male Pakistani participants (adjM = 5.44, SE = .18). None of the other
A series of 2 (culture: Pakistani vs. European American) x 2 (group condition:
in-group vs. out-group) x 2 (publicity: public vs. private) x 2 (biological sex: female
vs. male) multivariate analyses of variance for each set of dependent variables (e.g.,
appraisals, emotional feelings, and relationship orientations) were carried out. In the
present paper, we reported multivariate effects that had a significant level equal to or
below 5%.
Appraisals
Only the multivariate main effect of culture was significant, F (3, 221) =
22.94, p < .001, η2partial = .24. Culture had an effect on appraisals of disrespect, F (1,
223) = 14.09, p < .001, η2partial = .06, appraisals of immorality, F (1, 223) = 49.95, p <
.001, η2partial = .18, and appraisals of threat to family social image, F (1, 223) = 28.29,
39
p < .001, η2partial = .11. Table 2 reports the adjusted means and standard errors for all
orientations) per cultural group. As can be seen in Table 2, the Pakistani participants
appraised the devaluation of their families more negatively than the European
immoral, and as posing a greater threat to their family’s social image (see Table 2).
The multivariate main effect of condition was also significant, F (3, 221) =
22.58, p = .05, η2partial = .03. Condition only influenced appraisal of immorality, F (1,
223) = 5.40, p < .05, η2partial = .02. Participants in the out-group condition (i.e., a non-
family member devalued the family; adjM = 4.71, SE = .20) appraised the family
devaluation as more immoral than participants in the in-group condition (i.e., a family
member devalued the family; adjM = 4.03, SE = .22). None of the other main effects or
40
TABLE 2
Culture
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Madj SE Madj SE
Appraisals
Emotional feelings
Relationship Orientations
Emotional feelings
The multivariate main effect of culture was significant, F (2, 223) = 10.11, p
< .001, η2partial = .08. Culture had an effect on anger, F (1, 224) = 5.56, p = .02,
η2partial = .02, and shame, F (1, 224) = 19.32, p < .001, η2partial = .08. The Pakistani
41
participants felt angrier and more shame in response to family devaluation than the
European American participants (see Table 2). As indicated by the partial η2 and the
adjusted means, the biggest cultural differences in emotional feelings emerged for
feelings of shame. The Pakistani participants felt angry and shame almost to an equal
extent, indicating a particularly mixed emotional experience. On the other hand, the
European American participants felt mainly intense levels of anger, and only low to
publicity of devaluation was significant, F (2, 223) = 4.96, p = .008, η2partial = .04.
This three way interaction only affected feelings of shame, F (1, 224) = 9.24, p =
.003, η2partial = .04. This interaction was not significant for feelings of anger. The
adjusted means and standard errors for this interaction are reported in Table 3 and 4.
The Pakistani participants felt the most shame when an out-group member (i.e., a
non-family member) devalued their family in public, whereas the European American
participants felt the most shame when an in-group member (i.e., a family member)
devalued their family, also in public (See Table 3 and 4). Besides these two effects,
42
TABLE 3
Emotional feelings: Adjusted means and standard errors by culture, group condition,
Public
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In-group Out-group
___________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________
Pakistani EA Pakistani EA
___________________________________ _____________________________________ ____________________________________ ________________________________________
TABLE 4
Emotional feelings: Adjusted means and standard errors by culture, group condition,
Private
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In-group Out-group
___________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________
Pakistani EA Pakistani EA
___________________________________ _____________________________________ ____________________________________ ________________________________________
43
Relationship orientations
The multivariate main effect of culture was significant, F (2, 223) = 17.50, p <
.001, η2partial = .14 for relationship orientations. Culture affected the desire to distance
oneself from the person who devalued the family, F (1, 224) = 25.37, p < .001, η2partial
= .10, and the desire to maintain the relationship with the person who devalued the
family, F (1, 224) = 28.18, p < .001, η2partial = .11. The Pakistani participants
expressed a greater desire to distance from the person who devalued their family,
maintain the relationship with the person who devalued their family (see Table 2).
The multivariate main effect of publicity was also significant, F (2, 223) =
3.28, p = .04, η2partial = .03, though only for relationship distancing, F (1, 224) = 4.59,
p = .03, η2partial = .02. The participants wanted to distance from the person who
devalued their family more when the devaluation took place in public (adjM = 3.43, SE
= .21), than when the devaluation took place in private (adjM = 2.83, SE = .19).
Finally, the multivariate main effect of group condition, F (2, 223) = 6.14, p =
.003, η2partial = .05, and its multivariate interaction with culture, F (2, 223) = 6.18, p =
.002, η2partial = .05 was significant. This interaction was significant for relationship
.02, and F (1, 224) = 12.16, p = .001, η2partial = .05, respectively. Table 5 reports the
adjusted means and standard errors for the interaction. As can be seen in Table 5, the
person who devalued their family, whether this person was an in-group member or an
44
out-group member. By contrast, the European American participants made more of a
non-family member who devalued their family as compared to a family member; and
a greater desire to maintain their relationship with a family member who devalued
their family than a non-family member who did so (see Table 5). None of the other
TABLE 5
Culture
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In-group Out-group
_______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
Pakistani EA Pakistani EA
__________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________
Relationship Distancing 3.79 .32 1.74 .25 3.88 .31 3.10 .23
Relationship Maintenance 3.55 .35 6.17 .26 3.58 .33 4.12 .24
45
Discussion
The main objective of the present study was to examine how cultural differences in
differences in the cultural meaning of family between the two cultures. The Pakistani
family members). There are two potential reasons for the greater salience of
the case that this type of devaluation occurs more frequently in Pakistani culture.
Second, it can be the case that this type of group-level devaluation was more
family members could be more salient for the European American participants for
devaluation was more significant for the European American participants. These
46
Other less frequent types of family devaluation reported by both cultural
groups were insults to the cognitive competence of the family, socially deviant
Turning now to our predictions with regards to the effects of family honor on
expected, the Pakistani participants valued family honor more than the European
American participants. In line with this cultural difference in family honor, family
devaluation had more negative consequences for the Pakistani than the European
American participants. More specifically, the devaluation of one’s family had greater
immoral, and as more of a threat to their family’s social image (or reputation). As
honor is based on the maintenance of a positive social image, this finding suggests
that Pakistani participants saw the devaluation as a threat to their family honor.
emotional experience when their family was put down. Both Pakistani and European
reporting slightly higher levels due to their more negative appraisals of the
experience. The most notable cultural difference was the feelings of shame. The
47
higher levels of shame reported by the honor-oriented Pakistani participants were
offences (Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002b, 2008). This previous research has
adds to this previous literature by showing shame to be intimately tied to the threat of
Furthermore, the Pakistani participants felt the most shame when an out-group
member (i.e., a non-family member) devalued their family in public; alternatively, the
European American participants felt the most shame when an in-group member (i.e.,
a family member) devalued their family in public. These results illustrate that
Pakistani participants cared more about the image of their families in the eyes of an
2002b, 2004, 2008). On the other hand, the less honor-oriented European American
participants cared most about those evaluations of the family that occur within the
familial context.
Our results also indicated that the public-private context of the devaluation
moderates shame. Particularly, participants from both cultural groups felt more shame
overall in devaluations that occurred in public than in private. This provides support
to Smith et al.’s (2002) theory on the effect of public exposure on shame. Smith et al.
associated with feeling more shame. In the present study, our findings expand on the
48
association between shame and public exposure. When our family commits a moral
transgression or acts incompetently in public, our feelings of shame are also more
greater desire to distance themselves from the person responsible for the devaluation,
relationship with the person who devalued the family. Hence, actions leading to the
cultures are further illustrated in the interaction effect of group condition and culture.
The European American participants distinguished more between family and non-
family members: they wanted to distance themselves from the non-family member
who devalued their family, meanwhile wanted to maintain their relationship with the
family member who devalued their family. However, the Pakistani participants
sought to distance themselves equally from the person who put down their family,
the person who is responsible, regardless of whether the person is family or not.
49
Limitation and Future Directions
present study pertains to the conclusions that we were able to draw from the analyses.
“how much” across cultures); however, they do not illustrate any causality in the
negative appraisals, emotional feelings of anger and shame, and social consequences
experience includes more components than we covered in the present study (Ortony,
Clore, & Colins, 1988). Future study should examine additional aspects of emotion,
participants’ changes in heart rate, blood pressure and cortisol levels after a staged
50
changes when asking participants to recall an autobiographical experience of family
devaluation.
51
Conclusion
The family is instrumental to our sense of self and of the world. We are shaped by our
family, as our family is shaped by culture. From single-parent families in the United
States to large extended families in Pakistan, the meaning of the family varies from
one culture to another. The present study is the first to examine the cultural variations
revealed different types of family devaluation. In both Pakistan and the United States,
the reputation of the family, family honor, Pakistani participants viewed the
devaluation as more immoral, as a greater threat to their family’s social image, felt
more anger and shame, and expressed a greater desire to cut ties with the responsible
party.
of family. Culture shapes our psychological sensitivities to events that threaten our
52
References
Bakan, D. (1968). Disease, pain, and sacrifice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Caro Baroja, J. (1965). Honour and shame: A historical account of several conflicts.
In J. F. Peristiany (Ed.), Honour and shame: The values of Mediterranean
Society (pp. 80-137). London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwarz, M (1996). Insult, aggression
and the southern culture of honor: An “experimental ethnography”. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 945-960.
De Rivera, J., & Grinkis, C. (1986). Emotions as social relationships. Motivation and
Emotion, 10(4), 351-369.
53
Ellwood, D. T., & Jencks, C. (2002). The spread of single-parent families in the
United States since 1960. Cambridge: JFK School of Government, Harvard
University. Retrieved April 1, 2012, from
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/inequality/Seminar/Papers/ElwdJnck.pdf.
Evers, C., Fischer, A. H., Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2005).
Anger and social appraisal. A spicy sex difference? Emotion, 5, 258-266.
Finkenauer, C. & Rimé, B. (1998). Keeping emotional memories secret: Health and
subjective well-being when emotions are not shared. Journal of Health
Psychology, 3, 47-58.
Fischer, A., Manstead, A. S. R., & Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M. (1999). The role of
honor-related vs. individualistic values in conceptualizing pride, shame, and
anger: Spanish and Dutch cultural prototypes. Cognition and Emotion, 13,
149-179.
Fischer, A. H., Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., van Vianen, A., & Manstead, A. S. R.
(2004). Gender and cultural differences in emotion. Emotion, 4(1), 87-94.
Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion,
appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57(2), 212-228.
Gausel, N., & Leach, C. W. (2011). Concern for self-image and social image in the
management of moral failure: Rethinking shame. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 41, 468-478.
54
Georgas, J. (1989). Changing family values in Greece: From collectivistic to
individualistic. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 80-91.
Georgas, J., Berry, J. W., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Kagitcibasi, C., & Poortinga, Y. H.
(2006). Families across cultures: A 30-Nation psychological study.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilmore, D. D. (1987). Honor and shame and the unity of the Mediterranean.
Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Ijzerman, H., van Dijk, W. W., & Gallucci, M. (2007). A bumpy train ride: A field
experiment on insult, honor, and emotional reactions. Emotion, 7(4), 869-875.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). Family and human development across cultures: A view from
the other side. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kagitcibasi, C. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory
and applications. London: Psychology Press.
Kim, U., Park, Y.-S., Kwon, Y.-E., & Koo, J. (2005). Values of children, parent-child
relationship, and social change in Korea: Indigenous, cultural, and
psychological analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54,
338-355.
55
Koutrelakos, J. (2004). Acculturation of Greek Americans: Change and continuity in
cognitive schemas guiding intimate relationships. International Journal of
psychology, 39, 95-105.
Kovecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and Emotion: Language, culture, and body in human
feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Kuppens, P., Van Mechelen, I., Smits, D. J., & De Boeck, P. (2003). The appraisals
basis of anger: Specificity, necessity, and sufficiency of components.
Emotion, 3(3), 254-269.
Mishra, R., Mayer, B., Trommsdorff, G., Albert, I., & Schwartz, B. (2005).
Background and empirical results. In G. Trommsdorff & B. Nauck (Eds.) The
value of children in cross-cultural perspective: Case studies from eight
societies (pp. 143-170). Berlin: Pabst Science.
56
Neifert, M. (1996). Dr. Mom’s parenting guide: Common-sense guidance for the life
of your child. New York: Plume.
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Perez, W., & Padilla, A. M. (2000). Cultural orientation across three generations of
Hispanic students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Psychology, 22, 390-398.
Pitt-Rivers, J. (1965). Honor and social status. In J.F. Peristiany (Ed.) Honour and
shame: The values of Mediterranean society (p. 18-77). London: Weidenfeld
& Nicolson.
Pitt-Rivers, J. (1977). The fate of shechem or the politics of sex: Essays in the
anthropology of the Mediterranean. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
57
Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). Inside the
heart of emotion. On culture an relational concerns, in L. Z. Tiedens & C. W.
Leach (Eds), The social life of emotions (pp. 187-202). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, A. H. (2000). The role of
honor-related values in the elicitation, experience and communication of
pride, shame and anger: Spain and Netherlands compared. Personality and
Social psychology Bulletin, 26, 833-844.
Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, A. H. (2002b). The role
of honour concerns in emotional reactions to offences. Cognition and
Emotion, 16, 143-163.
Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Schwartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and
goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67(2), 206-221.
58
Sabogal, F., Marin, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., Marin, B. V., & Perez-Stable, E. J. (1987).
Hispanic familiasm and acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t?.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 397-412
Sam, D., Peltzer, K., & Mayer, D. (2005). The changing values of children and
preferences regarding family size in South Africa. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 54, 355-377.
Scherer, K. R., Schorr, A., & Johnstone, T. (2001). Appraisal processes in emotion.
Theory, methods, research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge:
Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 1061-1086.
Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core relational themes,
and the emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 7(3-4), 233-269.
Smith, R. H., Webster, J. M., Parrott, W. G., & Eyre, H. L. (2002). The role of public
exposure in moral and nonmoral shame and guilt. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 83, 138-159.
59
Stewart, S. M., Bond, M. H., Deeds, O., & Chung, S. F. (1999). Intergenerational
patterns of values and autonomy expectations in cultures of relatedness and
separateness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 575-593.
Stewart, S. M., Bond, M. H., Ho, L. M., Zaman, R. M., Dar, R., & Anwar, M. (2000).
Perceptions of parents and adolescent outcomes in Pakistan. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 18, 335–352.
Stewart, S. M., Bond, M. H., Zaman, R. M., McBride-Chang, C., Rao, N., & Fielding,
R. (1999). Functional parenting in Pakistan. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 23, 747-770.
Suckow, J. (2005). The value of children among Jews and Muslims in Israel: Methods
and results from the VOC field study. In G. Trommsdorff & B. Nauck (Eds.)
The value of children in cross-cultural perspective: Case studies from eight
societies (pp. 121-142). Berlin: Pabst Science.
Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and Guilt. New York: Guilford Press.
Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are shame, guilt
and embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 1256-1269.
60
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.
Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-
cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (2003). Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural
scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84(5), 997-1010.
Vandello, J. A., Cohen, D., Grandon, R., & Franiuk, R. (2009). Stand by your man.
Indirect prescription for honorable violence and feminine loyalty in Canada,
Chile, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(1) 81-
104.
Zabel, V. G. (2005). Emotion in poetry Using metaphor and simile. Ezine Articles.
Retrieved April 2, 2012, from http://ezinearticles.com/?Emotion-in-Poetry:-
Using-Metaphor-and-Simile&id=115598.
Zheng, G., Shi, S., & Tang, H. (2005). Population development and the value of
children in the People’s Republic of China. In G. Trommsdorff & B. Nauck
(Eds.), The value of children in cross-cultural perspective: Case studies from
eight societies (pp. 239-281). Berlin: Pabst Science.
61
Appendix A
62
Family Devaluation Questionnaire
In-group condition:
Please think of a recent situation in which a member of your family did or said
something that devalued your family. This means that this person did or said
something that reduced the worth of your family.
Out-group condition
Please think of a recent situation in which somebody you know (a person who is not
a stranger but also not a member of your family) did or said something that
devalued your family. This means that this person did or said something that reduced
the worth of your family.
Not Very
at all much
§ is offensive? ..................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
§ damages the social image of your family? .....1 2 3 4 5 6 7
§ is disrespectful? .............................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
§ is unfair? ........................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
§ is dishonest? ..................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
§ is untruthful? .................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
§ is false? ..........................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
§ is threatening to your family? .......................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
§ damages your family’s name
in the community? ....................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
63
3. How do you feel about what this person said or did?
Irritated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Embarrassed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Shamed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Angry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ashamed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Annoyed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Think about the moment in which this person did or said something that
devalued your family, were other people present in the situation (i.e., was it
public?)
o No o Yes
5. Has your relationship with this person changed after what (s)he did to or said
about your family?
Not Very
at all much
64
Socio-demographic questions asked for the Pakistani participants:
If you were born in Pakistan, from which province are you from?
Where was your father born? _____________ And your mother? _____________
65
Appendix B
66
Family Honor Scale
Could you please answer the following questions? The word "family" refers to the
immediate family, i.e., the people whom you live with in your home.
67
Appendix C
68
Table: Sample narratives of family devaluation categories
69