
Much of my research has
explored cultural influences on male violence. A theme of this research has
been the relationship of a cultural emphasis on honor to ideologies that
promote and perpetuate aggression and violence. My colleagues and I have done a
number of studies exploring how members of cultures of honor (for example, the
Culture, Honor, and
Cultural Perpetuation. One question we have explored is why and how cultural
patterns of violence are perpetuated and enforced. This is especially puzzling
given that norms for violence that may have been adaptive in the past (for
example, in frontier cultures lacking adequate law enforcement) often persist
beyond the point of being adaptive. One theory we have proposed is that norms
for violence in cultures of honor and elsewhere might be reinforced through a
type of pluralistic ignorance, where a cultural norm that was once functional
continues to be reinforced because members of the culture mistakenly believe
others endorse the norm. In essence, there may be widespread collective
misperceptions about the attractiveness or acceptability of violence that lead
to a mismatch between people's private attitudes and their public behavior. I
am currently exploring the extent of such possible misperceptions, and possible
interactions with gender. For example, do men mistakenly believe that women
expect aggression from them or that females are attracted to aggressive men?
Meanings of Manhood. In
one area of current research, I am looking at cultural definitions of manhood
and possible connections with violence. We are predicting that manhood carries
a tenuous elusive quality that distinguishes it from womanhood. This feeling of
the tenuous nature of manhood might lead males to feel that real manhood is
achieved only through struggles, and such beliefs might lead to patterns of
conflict and violence. One element of this definition of manhood that interests
me is how this influences relationships with women. One possibility is that
manhood is seen as an implicit social contract, such that real manhood is
dependent upon one's female partner being faithful. If this is the case, men
may resort to violent tactics of control and vigilance in order to ensure
partner fidelity, and therefore one's manhood.
References:
Southern culture and male
violence:
Cohen, D., Vandello, J. A.,
& Rantilla, A. K. (1998). The sacred and the social: Honor and violence in
cultural context. In P. Gilbert & B. Andrews (Eds.) Shame: Interpersonal
behavior, psychopathology, and culture (pp. 261-282).
Cohen,
D., & Vandello, J. A. (1998). Meanings of violence. Journal of Legal
Studies, 27, 501-518.
Cohen, D., & Vandello, J.
A. (2001). Honor and "faking" honorability. In R. Nesse (Ed.) Evolution
and the capacity for commitment (pp. 163-185).
Vandello, J. A., & Cohen,
D. (2004). When believing is seeing: Sustaining norms of violence in cultures
of honor. In M. Schaller & C. Crandall (Eds.) The psychological
foundations of culture.
Cohen, D., & Vandello, J.
A. (2004). The paradox of politeness. In M. Anderson (Ed.) Cultural shaping
of violence.
Vandello,
J. A., & Cohen,
D., & Ransom, S. (2008).
Honor and domestic violence against women:
Vandello J. A., & Cohen, D. (2008). Gender, culture, and intimate partner violence against women. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1-16.
Vandello, J. A. (2007). Sex ratios
and homicide across the
Vandello, J. A., Cohen, D., Granson,
R., & Franiuk, R. (under review). Stand by your man: Indirect cultural
prescriptions for honorable violence and feminine loyalty.
Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (under revision). Cultural themes associated with domestic violence against women: A cross-cultural analysis.
Manhood and aggression
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J.
K., Cohen, D., & Burnaford, R., & Wasti, A. (under review). Precarious
manhood and aggression.
Vandello, J. A., & Ransom,
S. (under review). Underestimating the “nice guy”: Males’ miscalibrations about
aggression and apology.