Individual differences in masculine honor beliefs predict attitudes toward aggressive security measures, war, and peace.

Abstract

We hypothesized that individual differences in masculine honor beliefs (MHBs) would predict participants' views of the world and the potential for evil and good among the people in it, as well as their attitudes toward war, peace, and aggressive security policies. Participants' levels of MHBs were positively associated with their support for war and aggressive security policies (Studies 1 and 2), as well as beliefs in pure evil and perceptions of the world as a competitive jungle (Study 2), and they were negatively associated with their support for peacemaking (Study 2) even after controlling for participants' levels of social desirability, conservatism, and trait aggression (Study 1); sex (Studies 1 and 2); and beliefs in pure evil and pure good (Study 2). We contend that individual differences in MHB are important for understanding how individuals perceive their worlds as places in which the potential and capacity for violence are needed to maintain safety and security.

Factors contributing to honor‐endorsing men's suicide capability: Firearm ownership, practical capability, and exposure to painful and provocative events

“…Crucially, the support and tendency for aggression among men in honor states appear to be limited to honor-related violence-where aggression is used as a means to defend and maintain one's reputation-rather than violence in general (Cohen & Nisbett, 1994). For instance, honor-endorsing individuals tend to be more supportive of violent actions by the U.S. military (Barnes et al, 2014;Saucier, Webster, et al, 2018), especially in response to terrorist attacks (Barnes, Brown, & Osterman, 2012).…”

“…Relatedly, this area of work would also benefit from distinguishing honor-based masculinity from masculinity norms found in other potentially related subcultures, such as the military and warrior culture (Anestis et al, 2019;Bryan & Morrow, 2011;Lancaster et al, 2018). Not only are honor-endorsing individuals more supportive of military action (Barnes et al, 2014;Barnes, Brown, & Osterman, 2012;Saucier, Webster, et al, 2018), but individuals from U.S. honor cultures may be overrepresented in the U.S. military (Brown, 2016;Council on Foreign Relations, 2020;Watkins & Sherk, 2008). Thus, future research could examine honor endorsement among U.S. military members and its potential impact on aggression and suicide.…”

“Sorry, I already have a boyfriend”: Masculine honor beliefs and perceptions of women’s use of deceptive rejection behaviors to avert unwanted romantic advances

“…Furthermore, the MHBS has been used to examine relationships between adherence to MHB and various attitudes and perceptions of social behaviors, such as perceptions of the world being a “competitive jungle” (Saucier, Webster, et al, 2018), men’s motivations for muscularity (Saucier, O’Dea, & Stratmoen, 2017), perceptions of slurs against men’s masculinity as insulting and deserving of retaliatory aggression (Saucier, Till, Miller, O’Dea, & Andres, 2015), expectations for men to physically confront honor threats (O’Dea, Chalman, Castro Bueno, & Saucier, 2018), and negative perceptions of those who do not (O’Dea, Bueno, & Saucier, 2017). MHB are associated with various political attitudes, including greater endorsement of agentic male candidates for President of the U.S. (Martens, Stratmoen, & Saucier, 2018), negative perceptions of football players who knelt during the National Anthem to protest police violence against racial minorities (Stratmoen, Lawless, & Saucier, 2018), and greater support for restrictive national security policies and endorsement of war (Saucier, Webster, et al, 2018). Furthermore, MHB are associated with negative perceptions of rape survivors and increased support for punishment for rapists (Saucier, Strain, Hockett, & McManus, 2015), as well as with perceptions of romantic rejection as threatening men’s honor and consequently expecting increased aggression by men toward women who reject their romantic advances (Stratmoen, Greer, Martens, & Saucier, 2018).…”

Demons with guns: How belief in pure evil relates to Attributional judgments for gun violence perpetrators

“…Webster and Saucier (2013) developed an individual difference scale of belief in pure evil (BPE). Individuals who more strongly believe in pure evil see the world is a viler, more dangerous place, and report more aggressive (vs. peaceful) attitudes, from issues about foreign policy to the criminal justice system (Campbell & Vollhardt, 2013;Saucier et al, 2018;Vasturia et al, 2018;Webster & Saucier, 2013.…”

“…Webster and Saucier (2013) developed an individual difference scale of belief in pure evil (BPE). Individuals who more strongly believe in pure evil see the world is a viler, more dangerous place, and report more aggressive (vs. peaceful) attitudes, from issues about foreign policy to the criminal justice system (Campbell & Vollhardt, 2013; Saucier et al, 2018; Vasturia et al, 2018; Webster & Saucier, 2013, 2015). Two studies have shown that people who believe more in pure evil more greatly: supported harsher punishments for various crimes (murders, assault, stealing), advocated for the death penalty, and opposed criminal rehabilitation, even after controlling for attributional complexity (the tendency to think more deeply about the causes for others' behavior), just‐world beliefs, and pessimism (Webster & Saucier, 2013).…”