When You Call Me That, Smile! How Norms for Politeness...

Social Psychology Quarterly1999, Vol. 62. No. 3.257-275

"When You Call Me That, Smile!"How Norms for Politeness, Interaction Styles, and Aggression

Work Together in Southern Culture*DOV COHEN

University of Waterloo

JOSEPH VANDELLO

SYLVIA PUENTE

ADRIAN RANTILLAUniversity of Illinois

Norms for politeness may actually promote violence in the U.S. South. Whereas north-erners may have behavioral rituals in which they give and receive small doses of hos-tility to regulate conflict, southerners seem not to. In two laboratory experiments,southerners were less clear than northerners in both sending and receiving signs ofhostility. In Study I, southerners initially showed little reaction to an annoying confed-erate only to end with bursts of anger far more sudden and more severe than north-erners ever showed. In Study 2, as subjects watched objectively dangerous situationsunfold, southerners were less sensitive to cues of hostility than were northerners. Andin Study 3, consistent with southern politeness norms inhibiting effective conflict reso-lution, it was shown that friendly, helpful cities had different patterns of argument-related violence in the North and in the South. Results suggest a cycle in which normsfor politeness and for violence can reinforce each other.

Economies, ecologies, nature, and socialstructure profoundly shape culture(Edgerton 1971; Triandis 1994). However,cultural patterns often persist past the mate-

*We are indebted to Krista Carlson, Eli Cohen,Lisa Cohen, Renae Franiuk, Brian Goelitz. TaliKlima. Jonathan Maier, Tim Niewold. RichardNisbett. Jennifer Olson. Kimberly Schallenberg,Jonathan Schniidgall. Erika Sorensen, AliciaSlellhorn, Jeff Stone, Kent Talcott, Ronna Talcott,and Justin Wilson. Thanks are due to David Budescuand Fritz Drasgow for their help with statisticalissues. Deep gratitude is also due to Robert Levine,whose work figures prominently in Study 3. Portionsof this paper were presented at the 95th annualmeeting of the American AnthropologicalAssociation; at The University of Chicago LawSchool conference on Social Meanings. Social Norms,and the Economic Analysis of Law; and at the 69thannual meeting of the Midwestern PsychologicalAssociation. Research was supported in part bygrants from the National Science Foundation (SBR-9808164), the Russell Sage Foundation, and theUniversity of Illinois Research Board.Correspondence conceming this article can be sentto Dov Cohen. Department of Psychology.University of Waterloo. Waterloo. ON N2L 3G1Canada (dcohentg'watarts.uwaterloo.ca).

rial circumstances that created them. Whatwas once a useful adaptation to the environ-ment becomes a cultural pattern functional-ly autonomous from the circumstances thatcreated it.

To understand why cultural patternspersist in ways that are not functional in cur-rent circumstances, we must look at thesocial mechanisms that perpetuate them.There are many such mechanisms workingat the micro and macro levels, and this paperexplores one such mechanism for one cul-ture within the United States. Specifically,this paper examines how styles of interper-sonal interaction and strong norms regard-ing politeness and conflict resolution canperpetuate violence in the U.S. South, ratherthan lessen it.

THE CULTURE OF HONOR IN THEUS. SOUTH

The U.S. South (and the West) histori-cally have been characterized by whatanthropologists call a culture of honor. Thatis. men in these cultures held to a stance of

257

258 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY

toughness and physical prowess and oftenresponded to insults, threats, and seriousaffronts with violence. We have argued thatoriginally this stance was a functional adap-tation to the economy and ecology of thefrontier South: Law enforcement was weak,and the herdsmen who settled the regionhad to adopt a tough stance of "don't-mess-with-me" deterrence to protect their familiesand their very portable wealth—that is, theirlivestock (McWhiney 1988; Nisbett andCohen 1996).

The culture of honor persists today inthese regions even though the frontier hasdisappeared and most people no longermake their living through the economicallyprecarious practice of herding. This persis-tence has been noted in attitude surveys,studies of homicide rates, and laboratoryexperiments, where it can be shown thatsoutherners endorse and often act out vio-lence when responding to affronts (Cohenand Nisbett 1994; Reaves and Nisbett 1997).

Mechanisms of Perpetuation: Micro andMacro

Independent of the forces that originallygave rise to the culture of honor, manymechanisms keep this culture in place(Cohen 1998a. 1998b). We briefly mention afew here.

Collective representation.^. At the macrolevel, there are collective representations,social policies, and institutional practices inthe South and West that condone violence inresponse to insult or threat. These rangefrom formal laws allowing citizens greaterfreedom to kill in self-defense to informalnorms acted out by people and institutions,which stigmatize (or, rather, fail to stigma-tize) those who kill to uphold their honor(Cohen 1996; Cohen and Nisbett 1997).

Social organization. Also at the macrolevel are the forces of social organization.Normally these are regarded as restrainingpeople's violent tendencies, but tight familystructures, stable communities, and strongreligious institutions actually may promotecertain forms of violence in the South andWest. Thus, whereas cohesive family, com-munity, and religious structures are associat-ed with less violence in the North, they are

associated with more of certain types of vio-lence in the South and West, as shown inattitude surveys, homicide rates, and prefer-ences for violent entertainment and pas-times (Cohen 1998a; Cohen and Vandello1998; Ellison 1991).

Norm enforcement. At the microlevel.norms are enforced—or at least are expect-ed to be enforced—interpersonally. That is,southern men fear that if they do notrespond to an insult, others will view them asless manly (Cohen et al. 1996). How muchthis is actually true and how much it is a caseof "pluralistic ignorance" is an open ques-tion (Miller and Prentice 1994). But eitherway. using violence may appear reasonableto southerners because they fear stigmafrom their peers if they do not do so.

Interaction patterns. Finally, at themicrolevel, there are patterns of interper-sonal interaction that keep the cuiture-of-honor pattern going. In this case, rather thanlessening the potential for conflict, strongnorms for politeness may create the poten-tial for very serious aggression and may per-petuate the cycle of violence in the South.

Patterns of Politeness and ConflictResolution

Specifically the pattern is this: Becausethe South possesses a culture of honor witha serious undercurrent of violence, peopletread lightly and act in accordance withnorms of politeness and hospitality so thatthey do not offend (and invite violence)from others. This politeness sometimesworks in that it mutes some conflicts thatwill blow over. But for conflicts that are notlikely to blow over and that involve repeatedinteraction, these norms for politeness canironically lead situations to explode in "sud-den," violent eruptions. Thus we suggest thatnorms for politeness can keep conflictsbelow the surface, masking underlying nega-tive emotions and preventing parties fromworking out their differences before the sit-uation has unfortunately gone too far.

As economist Thomas Schelling (1966)noted, many conflicts amount to coordina-tion games. Two parties must be able to sig-nal to each other what is acceptable conductand what crosses the line and is an unaccept-

INTERACTIONS AND VIOLENCE 259

able act of aggression that calls for retalia-tion. Many cultures have very rich methodsfor curbing another person's offensivebehavior, such as overt declarations ofanger, veiled threats, biting humor, calculat-ed bluffs, and so on (see. for example. Colson1975; Schelllng 1966). Yet cultures with astrong emphasis on politeness and conflictavoidance often lack such tools in theirbehavioral repertoire. People in these cul-tures are unable to signal their anger insocially appropriate ways because they maynot have the rituals for small hostilities andrudeness in their "cultural tool kit" for doingso (see Swidler 1986:277). Being unpracticedin the rituals for giving and receiving smallhostilities during a conflict, people in suchsocieties are unable to play the "coordina-tion game" that might allow them to reach amutually agreeable, face-saving solutionwithout a full-scale blowup.

In addition, people in such culturesbecome unwilling to let even a little angerleak out during conflicts because they knowthat this will bring on violence from theother party. Thus they sensibly choose toconceal their anger and intention to aggressuntil they are ready to launch a full-blownattack. In either case, conflicts simmer underthe surface and signs of anger are hiddenuntil a major explosion occurs, which mighthave been avoided if the situation had beenworked out earlier.

POLITENESS IN THE SOUTH

Anthropological research from acrossthe world supports the notion that violentcultures are often polite, and vice versa (seework reviewed in Cohen and Vandello1997). A classic example involves the Gebusiof New Guinea, whose culture of congeniali-ty, "collective good will," and "good compa-ny" also has a homicide rate of 568 per100.000—or 50 times the U.S. average(Knauft 1985:1-2).

Politeness and violence norms oftenreinforce each other cyclically. On one hand,the threat of violence often leads to polite-ness. As Colson (1975:37) observed, "[S]omepeople live in what appears to be aRousseauian paradise because they take aHobbesian view of their situation: they walk

softly because they beiieve it necessary notto offend others whom they regard as dan-gerous." People are often polite, genial, andfriendly because they fear the enmity of oth-ers (Fiske et al. 1997; Gould 1973). This partof the cycle is captured nicely by "RobertHeinlein's famous dictum that 'An armedsociety is a polite society." Knowing thatone's fellow citizens are armed, greater careis naturally taken not to give offense. . . .Oras is famously said in American literature, bythe hero of Owen Wister's The Virginian,'When you call me that. smileV" (quoted inWill 1993:93).

Here, however, we argue that the cycle isalso self-reinforcing because politeness oftenhelps to foment the serious violence it wassupposed to prevent by making it impossibleto play the "coordination game." The Southis a region known for its charm, hospitality,congeniality, and politeness. Yet there is alsothe potential for sudden and extreme vio-lence that comes seemingly without warning.Thus "the southerner is proverbially gentlein manner. It has been said that until he isangered enough to kill you, he will treat youpohtely" (Carter 1963:59). (Similar folk wis-dom about "mountain people" holds that inAppalachia, men are "slower to anger orpanic, but absolutely without reason ormercy once the fat [is] in the fire"(Thompson 1966:172)).

We hypothesize here that the behavioralritual of using anger as a warning and acheck on behavior during a conflict is lessfamiliar to southerners than to northerners;the latter often use anger, rudeness, andinsults as regulating mechanisms. Thus,among southerners, as confiicts escalate,anger often is not communicated clearly anddirectly by one party; and further, becausesoutherners are unpracticed in the signalinggame of "small hostilities." signs of impend-ing anger often are not clearly perceived bythe other party. Therefore, among partici-pants who lack communication or the abilityto signal and "coordinate," conflicts oftensimmer under the surface and then eruptsuddenly and dramatically in a violentexplosion.

In Study 1 we attempt to show thatnorms for politeness inhibit southernersfrom expressing their anger during a con-


flict, until some "line in the sand" is crossed,when they respond with aggression far moreunpredictable, sudden, and severe thannortherners ever do. In Study 2 we suggestthat in reading the anger of others, southern-ers are not as aware as northerners are thata situation is escalating to a dangerous, criti-cal level. And in Study 3 we show that theprocesses identified in Studies 1 and 2 haveconsequences in the real world as we exam-ine homicide rates in cities that are more orless friendly, helpful, or "nice" in the Northand South.

A NOTE ON SUBJECTS AND THECLASSIFICATION OF ILLINOIS

Previous research on this topic focusedon white males from the North and theSouth. Certainly, women play a vital role,perhaps the most important role, in perpetu-ating a culture (Cohen and Vandello 1997;Nisbett and Cohen 1996). Yet we focus onmen in these studies because men areresponsible for the overwhelming majorityof violent acts committed in the UnitedStates and the rest of the world (Daly andWilson 1988). We focus on whites becauseempirical work has shown that these North-South cultural differences in violence holdonly for whites (for possible reasons, seeNisbett and Cohen 1996). We recognize thatour results do not generalize to all popula-tions of the South and North, and we oftenuse the term "southerner" or "northerner"merely as shorthand for southern or north-ern white men.

In Studies 1 and 2, North and Southwere defined as cultural regions whoseboundaries are approximated only roughlyby census categorization (Vandello andCohen 1999; Zelinsky 1973). For these stud-ies, we defined North and South followingCohen et al. (1996), except that studentsfrom Illinois were considered northern orsouthern depending on where they werefrom in the state. According to many histori-ans, ethnographers, demographers, econo-mists, political scientists, and sociologists, thesouth of Illinois is culturally part of theSouth of the United States and the north ispart of the North, as a consequence of their

respective settlement pattems and ecologies.The explanation is as follows:

As the country expanded westward,migration for the most part followed rela-tively lateral bands. Thus the lower part ofIllinois was settled by rugged, clannish"Scots-Irish pioneers" from southernAppalachia. As Wirt (1989:32) wrote,"Having lost out to landowners down Southand bitterly resentful of it, they doffed theircoonskin hats to neither squire norjudge... .The protection of rights, property,and family was often handled individuallyand violently." Later a distinctly differentgroup of public-spirited and "moralistic"New Englanders settled northern Illinois(Matthews 1909). And indeed, regional iden-tification followed these patterns; Duringthe Civil War "there were suggestions thatthe state perhaps ought to be divided to per-mit the southern third to secede" (Sutton1989:107).

Scholarly research has supplementedfolk wisdom and has outlined how the twosettlement patterns produced two distinctcultures reflecting the great North-Southdivision in the nation at large. Today and inthe past, northern Illinois has looked like theNorth and southem Illinois has looked likethe South in features such as politics andsocial issues, religion, diet, family traditions,population densities, economies, agricul-tures, race relations, mores, regional self-identification, and, perhaps most importantfor the present purposes, traditions of vio-lence (Adams 1993; Atack 1989; Barone andUjifusa 1991, 1993; Birdsall and Florin 1992;Elazar 1970,1972,1994; Fenton 1966; Fischer1989; Flynn 1996,1997,1998; Frank, Nardulliand Green 1989; Gastil 1975; Nardulli 1989;Nardulli and Krassa 1989; Pillsbury 1989;Powers 1953; Reed 1976, but also see Reed,Kohls, and Hanchette 1990; Weiss 1994;Whitt, Corzine, and Huff-Corzine 1995;Zelinsky 1973).

The line between the end of the Southand the beginning of the North in Illinois isnot obvious. We chose to draw the line atSpringfield, which divides the state in halfapproximately, and which sits almost exactlyon the same latitude as the Mason-DixonLine. This choice is consistent with twomeaningful and objective measures: (1)


political partisanship and voting patterns,which are often proxies for larger social,racial, and cultural stances {see Barone andUjifusa 1991, 1993; Frank et al. 1989; Wirt1989:54) and (2) migration patterns. Inregard to settlement patterns, Atack(1989;70-73), using census data from 1850,showed that Springfield is an approximatedividing line in examinations of nativemigration. Above Springfield, the largestmigrant groups to Illinois came from NewYork. Ohio, and Pennsylvania; south ofSpringfield, however, there were only twocounties (out of approximately 50) in whichthe largest migrant group did not come fromeither Tennessee. Kentucky, or the Carolinas(Atack 1989).

Finally, empirical evidence shows thatour division of Illinois makes sense in termsof larger national divisions. On the keydependent variables in both Studies 1 and 2.our students from southern Illinois respond-ed as did our out-of-state southerners, andour students from northern Illinois respond-ed as did our out-of-state northerners. (Out-of-state students constituted about one-thirdof our sample across Studies 1 and 2.) Allinteractions between region and in-state/out-of-state status for our key depen-dent variables were nonsignificant (all ps >.20).

. ' • " - •

STUDY 1; GIVING SIGNS OF ANGER

In Study 1 we examined how northern-ers and southerners would react as conflictsdeveloped over time. We invited subjectsinto the laboratory for what was describedas a "simulated art therapy session." Duringthe session, a confederate issued a series ofmild annoyances to the subjects. These werenothing too serious, but they were definitelymeant to be irritating. For the most part,they consisted of the obnoxious confederatehitting the subject with paper wads andmaking smart-aleck comments.

The prediction was that northern sub-jects would react initially to the irritationswith displays of anger that would slowlyescalate over time. Gradually, when theyrealized that their attempts to check theother person's behavior were doing no good,they would plateau and level off in their

expressions. Southerners, on the other hand,would absorb the irritations stoically at first,remaining polite and showing little signs ofany escalating anger. Tlien, at some criticalpoint, when the confederate crossed a "linein the sand." southerners would dramaticallyshoot upward in their conflict behavior andshow expressions of anger far more volatile,sudden, and severe than northerners everhad. '

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were 27 white northern malesand 22 white southern males enrolled at theUniversity of Illinois. They were preselectedon the basis of the state (or, in the case ofIllinois residents, the county) in which theyhad attended high school. Subjects fromChicago and the surrounding suburbs(Cook, Lake, and DuPage Counties) makeup a large part of the subject pool at theUniversity of Illinois. These students werenot selected for this study because we want-ed the sample from northern Illinois to be ascomparable as possible to the southern sam-ple in regard to rural versus urban origin,income, and other dimensions. Demographicinformation was obtained from subjectsafter the end of the study: Subjects who hadspent at least one-third of their life in theSouth or southern Illinois were consideredsouthern; all others were considered north-ern. As in Cohen et al. (1996), the South wasdefined as Alabama. Arkansas, Delaware,Florida, Georgia. Kentucky, Louisiana,Maryland. Mississippi, Missouri, NorthCarolina, Oklahoma. South Carolina,Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and WestVirginia.

Procedure '

Subjects were invited to the laboratory,where a sign indicated that this was an "arttherapy" study. A female experimentergreeted the subject, shook hands with him,and very earnestly explained that the sessionwould involve "art regression therapy, whichis a form of relaxed drawing that is supposedto uncover primal childhood memories. Weare interested in looking at how the drawing


process relates to a state of relaxation andinner calm, and what sort of effect this hason mood and feeling." Subjects were toldthat in conventional "talk" therapy sessions,audiotaping takes place, but that in play orart therapy, videotape is used to monitorprogress in the session; subjects were askedto sign a videotape consent form. The exper-imenter explained that they were waiting foranother subject, but at a few minutes pastthe hour she decided to start the experimentand placed a "Do not disturb" sign on thedoor.

A short time later, the confederatewalked in and asked if this was the rightstudy. Three undergraduate students alter-nated playing the role of the confederate.(Along with the experimenter, the confeder-ates were blind to the hypotheses of theexperiment and to the subject's region). Allthree confederates were large white menwho acted very sure of themselves: Theyranged from 6 feet to 6 feet 5 inches tall andweighed 170 to 215 pounds. The experi-menter shook hands with the confederateand motioned for him to shake hands withthe other subject before he sat down.

The experimenter explained the studyagain and elaborated on the concept behindart therapy. Subjects were to draw at leastfive pictures about themes from their child-hood, using the paper and crayons that wereprovided. The experimenter asked the sub-ject to select six crayons to draw with andthen asked the confederate to do the same.She then told them to begin drawing andexcused herself to "take care of anotherexperiment down on the first floor," sayingshe would return in about half an hour.

The subject and the confederate wereseated at separate desks facing adjacentwalls. Next to the far end of the subject'sdesk was a large garbage can. After theexperimenter left, the confederate said"What a loser" and went about drawing.After a minute or so, the confederate walkedover to the subject's desk and took two ofthe subject's crayons, saying "Let me get acouple of your crayons. Slick. I'll give themback later" (Annoyance 1).

A minute later, he announced "Thisreally sucks. I hate drawing," and afteranother minute, he crumpled his drawing

and threw it in the garbage can. Beginning atthis point, annoyances followed at aboutone-minute intervals.

Annoyance 2: The confederate crumpledhis paper, shooting at the basket but missingand hitting the subject. After hitting him, hesaid "Watch out there. Slick." Annoyance 3:The confederate hit the subject with anotherpaper wad. apologizing insincerely: "Oh,sorry. Slick. Trying to hit the basket."Annoyance 4: The confederate took twomore of the subject's crayons, saying "I needthese ones now. Slick" and stared at the sub-ject's drawing. Annoyance 5: The confeder-ate hit the subject with a paper wad again,saying "Slick, man, you keep getting in myway" and followed immediately with anoth-er paper wad hit, saying "He shoots, hescores. . ." Annoyance 6: The confederatewent over to the subject and said "Great artwork. Slick. I can tell you're really in touchwith your inner feelings. But you need to putyour name on it." He then wrote "Slick" onthe subject's drawing. Annoyance 7: Theconfederate hit the subject with a paperwad. saying "You're sitting there like a sit-ting duck. Maybe I'll call you Duck insteadof Slick." Annoyance 8: The confederatelaunched another paper wad and said "Sorryabout that. Duck." Annoyance 9: The con-federate said "Duck, you need to duck" andhit the subject with a paper wad again. Veryamused with himself, the confederate said"Get it. Duck—duck?" Annoyance 10: Theconfederate looked at the subject's drawingand said "You know. Slick, your drawing ispretty weak." Annoyance 11: The confeder-ate hit the subject with another paper wadand said "I don't know about your drawings.Slick, but you make a pretty good target."

After another minute or so, the confed-erate got up. asked "How long is this goingto go on?" and opened the door looking forthe experimenter. The experimenterreturned shortly thereafter and asked howeverything had gone. She gave the subjects afew questionnaires to complete (includingone that asked for demographic informa-tion) and then announced that subjectswould be separated to talk with the experi-menter individually about their drawings.

Debriefing. Process debriefings and rec-onciliations with the confederate were part


of the postexperimental session. Subjectswere probed for suspicion. A few expressedsome suspicion, but none were so suspiciousthat their data were eliminated. The researchwas explained thoroughly, and experi-menters made sure that subjects were emo-tionally at peace with the experience andwith any of their actions. Subjects in generalfound the experiment quite worthwhile andinteresting.' We also thoroughly explainedthe purpose of Study 2 and asked subjectsfor written permission to use their tapes inthat follow-up study. We emphasized thatgiving permission was completely optional.All but one participant consented to the useof his tape.

Precautions. Confederates were instruct-ed to stop the study if they felt that a physi-cal confrontation was imminent, and it wasbelieved that confederates sat far enoughaway from the subjects that they would havetime to react if the subject did anythingunexpected. The procedure, however, causedmore aggression, and more sudden, unpre-dictable aggression, than was anticipated. Intwo cases, subjects—both southerners—made physical contact with our confederate.In neither case was anyone hurt, nor werethe subjects (or confederates) upset afterdebriefing. However, it became clear thatthe precautions taken in the current proce-dure were inadequate, and we decided tostop conducting the study.

Dependent Measures

Emotional displays were rated by theexperimenter, who watched on a video feedin another room, and by the confederate,who cribbed notes to himself as the studyproceeded. Both the confederate and experi-menter rated the amount of anger andamusement shown by the subject after eachprovocation. Thus, following Cohen et ai.(1996), our main measure of hostility was

1 In the post-experimental sessions, subjects inboth Study 1 and Study 2 gave their experimentshigh marks. Interestingly, subjects in Study 1 actuallyrated their experiment as more interestitig and moreworthwhile than those in Study 2, and were morehkeiy to say that they were glad they had participat-ed.

the anger-minus-amusement score.̂ In addi-tion, we asked the experimenter to make anexploratory rating of the "risk of physicalconfrontation" and the "risk of verbal con-frontation" (later averaged together) as shewatched in the other room. Ratings weremade on a 1 to 7 scale. (Of course, these rat-ings pertained to displayed rather than expe-rienced emotion.)

Ratings were intercorrelated moderate-ly, because experimenters and confederateshad somewhat different vantage points onthe action. The experimenter's ratings ofphysical and verbal confrontation were cor-related r = .59,/7 < .001. The experimenter'sand the confederate's anger-minus-amuse-ment ratings were correlated r =.49./? < .001.

Effect sizes for the interactions reportedbelow are given by the / statistic, whereappropriate. Following convention, we con-sider an /of .1 as small. .25 as medium, and.4 as large (Rosenthal and Rosnow1991:444).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figures 1 and 2 reveal that the timecourses for northern and southern subjects'emotional reactions were quite differentacross the 11 annoyances. Significance levelsfor the interaction of region by time (11 lev-els) in the MANOVAs were p < .001(f(10,450) = 3.55. medium effect size /= .28)for the anger-minus-amusement variableand p < .02 (F(10,430) = 2.18, medium effectsize f = .23) for the risk-of-confrontationvariable. More focused statistical analysesdiscussed below are based on the data pre-sented in Figures 1 and 2.

Emotional Reaction

As shown in Figures 1 and 2, for the firstseveral annoyances, northerners tended toshow a somewhat greater response thansoutherners did, steadily increasing theirhostility up to about Annoyance 5, whereassoutherners stayed flat and at a relativelycalm level. At approximately Annoyance 5,

2 Results from both Studies 1 and 2 are extremelysimilar if we use only the anger variable rather thanthe anger-minus-amusement score.

264

E<DCO3

E<:CO

CD

1.5

1.2

.9

.6

.3

0

-.3

-.6

-.9

..a..

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OUARTERLY

SouthernSubjectsNorthern Subjects

D.

ti..• 0 * IT

• • • a

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Annoyance

Figure 1. Anger-minus-Amusement Scoresfor Northem and Southem Subjects As TTiey Were Exposed to theConfederate's Persistent Annoyances

however, a "line in the sand" seemed to becrossed for our southern subjects. At thatpoint, southerners caught up with theirnorthern counterparts, and after that, thepatterns were reversed; Northerners leveledout in their responses and southernersshowed sudden and dramatic escalations intheir hostility.

Absolute level of anger. For this analysis,we grouped annoyances into Time 1 inci-dents (Annoyances 1 to 5) and Time 2 inci-

dents (Annoyances 6 to 11).-' In regard tothe absolute level of hostility during Times 1and 2, for anger-minus-amusement scores,northerners were likely to be somewhatmore angry and less amused than were

^ Dividing analyses into Time 1 and Time 2 andthen using the "wired-in" ANOVA contrast of -t-1. - 1 ,- 1 . +1 is a conservative test of our hypothesisbecause predictions involved the trends over multi-ple points in time that are roughly borne out byFigures 1 and 2.


SouthernSubjectsNorthernSubjects

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Annoyance

Figure 2. Risk-of-Confrontation Scores for Northern and Southern Subjects As They Were Exposed to theConfederate's Persistent Annoyances

southerners at Time 1, whereas southernerswere likely to be far more angry than werenortherners at Time 2. The time by regioninteraction was significant at p < .02 (f(l,45)= 5.87, medium to large effect size / = .36).Means were North Time 1 = -.17, sd = .72;South Time 1 = -.35, sd = .83; North Time 2 =.10, sd = L47, South Time 2 = .91, sd = 1.77.The same pattern was found for the risk-of-confrontation measure. Means were North

Time 1 = 1.20, sd = .45; South Time 1 = 1.12,sd = .29; North Time 2 = 1.44, sd = .95; SouthTime 2 = 1.74, sd = 1.03. The time by regioninteraction was marginally significant a tp <•.09 (F(l,45) = 3.05. medium effect size / =.26).

The simple main effect of region for theabsolute level of hostility at Time I was notsignificant. However, the expected time byregion interactions were significant or mar-


ginally so. Further, relevant predictionsabout signaling also concerned (1) rates ofchange in expression of anger and the pointsat which hostility would escalate for north-erners and for southerners, and (2) how sud-denly and unpredictably hostility wouldcome on for the two groups.

Escalation of hostility. Averaging togeth-er the anger-minus-amusement and the risk-of-confrontation scores, we found that thenortherners steadily escalated their hostilitywhile southerners remained flat overAnnoyances 1 to 4 (northern averagechange score = .21, southern average changescore = -.03; f(45) = L92,p < .06). Beginningwith Annoyance 5, however, the situationwas reversed with southerners showingsteady Increases upward and northernersgoing flat (northern average change score =-.04, southern average change score = .43;/(45) = 2.98, p < .005). This interaction ofregion by time period for average changescore was significant at p < .002 (F(l,44) =10.97. large effect size / = .5), an indicationthat southerners and northerners chose toescalate the conflict at different points.

Suddenness of hostility. For each individ-ual subject, we looked at the largest jumpsand steepest declines in hostility from oneannoyance to the next. In keeping with thenotion of politeness masking an underlyinganger, southerners' anger tended to emergemore suddenly and unpredictably. That is,the maximum jump in anger from oneannoyance to the next was much greater onaverage for southerners than for northerners(southern mean = 1.61, sd = .98; northernmean = .98, sd - .71; p < .01, /(45) = 2.62,large effect size / = .39). Similarly, the maxi-mum jump in confrontational behavior fromone annoyance to the next was greater onaverage for southerners than for northerners(southern mean = 1.30, sd = 1.24; northernmean = 0.61, sd = .79; p < .02, t{45) = 2.35,medium-large effect size / = .32).Interestingly, declines in anger and con-frontational behavior were not steeper, norwere increases in amusement different fornortherners and for southerners (ail ps >.10). Thus, consistent with politeness mask-ing anger expression, southerners onlyseemed to be more upwardly volatile, ratherthan just unpredictable per se.

Maximum levels of hostility. For eachindividual subject, we also looked at themaximum level of hostility shown for anyone annoyance during the study, We predict-ed that hostility for southerners ultimatelywould peak at a higher level, on average,than it would for northerners. This predic-tion was confirmed for both anger-minus-amusement scores and confrontation-riskscores. The means were as follows; southernmaximum anger-mlnus-amusement score =2.52, sd = 2.02; northern maximum = 1.54,sd = 1.40;/7<.05./(47) = 2.01, medium effectsize / - .29; southern maximum confronta-tion score = 2.86. sd = L95; northern maxi-mum = 1.80, sd = 1.18; p < .02, r(47) ^ 2.36,medium-large effect size/= .34.*

" Interestingly, northerners and southerners alsoseemed to display different patterns of conflict reso-lution in regard to the inelination to forgive and for-get. Toward the end of the study, after the provoca-tions ended but before subjeets were informed aboutthe true nature of the study, the confederate apolo-gized to the subject, saying "Sorry about hitting youwith all those paper wads" and offering to shake thesubject's hand. For the following analyses, we dividedsubjects into those who had "blown up" (defined bythe top 20 percent of the anger-minus-amusementscores) and those who had not.

We found that northerners who had stayed calmduring the experiment were more likely to forgivethe confederate and shake his hand when he apolo-gized. Northerners who had blown up at the confed-erate, however, seemed to be genuinely angry andwere less forgiving and less likely to shake handswith the confederate. The reverse pattern held forsoutherners: Southerners who had blown up wererelatively more likely to forgive, whereas those whohad not expressed their anger seemed still to benursing a grudge. Means for acceptance of the apolo-gy, as rated by the confederate on a seven-pointscale, were as follows: northern blowup = 2.5: north-ern calm - 5.33; southern blowup - 5.33, southerncalm = 4.07 (interaction p < .005 (F(1.41) = 8.80,large effect size/= .46).The following percentages ofsubjects refused to shake the confederate's hand:northern blowup = 50; northern calm - 9; southemblowup = 0; southern calm = 7 (interaction p <.i(i(ehi-square (I.N = 45) - 3.10.))

The same patterns seemed to hold for our data onforgetting. Approximately six months after the study,we wrote to all subjects, mailing them pictures offour persons and asking them to identify the onewho had been their confederate. Few subjects forgotthe confederate, but those who did were (1) north-erners who had stayed calm and (2) southerners whohad blown up. Twenly-four percent of northernerswho had stayed calm could not pick out the confed-erate's picture from a lineup, but all northerners who


Demographic Data

Southern and northern students werevery similar on almost every demographicdimension we examined, other than thelength of time their families had lived in theSouth (p < .001). That is, southern and north-ern students did not differ on: school inwhich they were enrolled, religious prefer-ence or denomination, church attendance,present or past membership in a fraternity,whether their father or mother had been inthe military, percentage of life lived inIllinois, percentage of life in rural areas,occupational categories of their father ormother, marital status of their parents nowor as they grew up, number of brothers,number of sisters, age, father's or mother'seducation, family income, participation in avarsity sport in high school or in college,SAT verbal score, SAT mathematics score,ACT score, height, and weight (aWps > .10).̂

Summary

In sum, the predicted effects emerged.Southerners and northerners reacted to the

had blown up could do so. In contrast, all southern-ers who had stayed calm remembered the confeder-ate, whereas 14 percent of those who had blown uphad forgotten him (interaction p < .02; chi-square

Caution is warranted in interpreting the abovedata because of the small cell sizes in the "blowtjp"conditions: about five per cell because of the strictcriteria for "blowup" that we adopted. Nevertheless,the data showed a consistent pattern. For the hand-shake, apology, and memory measures, it appeared(hat northerners who had exploded were generallyangry and not prepared to forgive and forget, where-as southerners who had blown up were somewhatmore likely to forgive and forget than their counter-parts who had not expressed their anger. Perhaps thesoutherners who exploded were following a culturalscript that read something like this: "You were a jerk.I blew up at you. Let's shake hands and put it behindus." Such magnanimity may be part of the generalculture of honor stance (Gould 1973: Pitt-Rivers1965). Tliese findings that styles of dispute resolutionmay differ for northerners and for southerners havepractical implications for intervention, which are dis-cussed elsewhere (Cohen & Vandello 1997).

'̂ Similarly, for Experiment 2, we found little dif-ference between northerners and southerners onthese demographic variables. In Experiment 2, theresults were not affected by covarying out the twovariables for which a difference existed.

confederate's persistent annoyances inextremely different ways. Northerners beganby gradually and steadily increasing theiranger and confrontational behavior as theygave off small doses and signals of hostility,but then they leveled off as they probablyrealized their actions were doing no good.Southerners, on the other hand, absorbedthe annoyances stoically at first, remainingpolite and showing no escalation in theiranger. Then, at some critical point, thingschanged dramatically and southerners react-ed with a delayed hostility that was moresudden and ultimately far more intense thannortherners had ever shown.

STUDY 2: READING SIGNS OF ANGER

The role of the person who is affrontedand wants to retaliate is only half of the con-flict. The person doing the affronting alsohas a crucial role; and if he cannot detectsubtle warnings and signals to back off. theconfiict can escalate to dangerous levels.

In Study 1, it was suggested that south-ern culture does not have the behavioral rit-uals that allow persons to warn and checkothers through small displays of hostility. Ifit is true that such rituals are not part of the"cultural tool kit," we should also see thatsoutherners are less practiced than north-erners in detecting these signals and are lesssensitive to real cues of anger as dangeroussituations unfold. That is, southerners shouldbe less adept at playing the sorts of conflict"coordination games" described by Schelling(1966).

In Study 2 we showed northern andsouthern subjects videotapes of variousexperimental sessions from Study 1. InCohen et al. (1996), it was found that south-erners did not project hostility onto neutralor nonthreatening stimuli. The questionhere, however, was whether they would failto see anger cues in places where the realpotential for hostility existed.

METHOD

Overview

We selected eight stimulus tapes. On twoof these tapes, the (southern) subject even-tually tried to make contact with the confed-

268 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OUARTERLY

erate. The other tapes consisted of two tapeswith the highest northern anger-minus-amusement scores for Time 2, two tapes withthe lowest northern anger-minus-amusementscores for Time 2, and two tapes with thelowest southern anger-minus-amusementscores for Time 2.

Each subject was shown four tapes, onefrom each of the categories named above,with order of the tapes run through all possi-ble combinations across subjects. Subjectswere shown the tapes of the sessions, buteach tape ended just before the final annoy-ance—that is. either before the subject triedto make contact with the confederate orbefore the session reached the end of itscourse. Thus subjects in Study 2 never knewthe outcomes of the sessions they werewatching. Subjects assigned hostility ratingsas the tapes played.

Subjects and Procedure

Subjects were 46 northern white malesand 47 southern white males, defined as inStudy 1. Data from five additional subjectswere eliminated because they knew either aconfederate or a subject on the tapes.

Subjects were invited to the laboratoryand were told that they would watch video-tapes and make judgments about "real peo-ple in real conflict situations." The experi-menter described the procedure for Study 1in detail, gave subjects a list of the annoy-ances they would see, and familiarized themwith the response booklet and their experi-mental tasks.

As subjects watched the tapes, theyrated (on a scale of 1 to 7) the degree ofanger and amusement shown by the subjecton the tape after each provocation. Later weaveraged across provocations. We also askedtwo exploratory questions after each inci-dent: What will the subject do next? andWhat's the chance the session will eventuallyhave to be stopped? (There were also anumber of other questions asked of subjectsafter each tape, such as "How do you thinkmost women (men) students at theUniversity of Illinois would feel about thesubject?" and "What was your feeling aboutthe subject?" We report the findings forthese questions elsewhere in a paper on

norm enforcement, which is still in prepara-tion.)

Because of time constraints, the tapeswere speeded up when the subject and theconfederate were merely drawing with theirbacks to each other. The tape was alwaysshown in real time, however, for approxi-mately 10 seconds before and 15 secondsafter each annoyance. Sometimes the sub-jects were run in pairs. When this occurred,the experimenter explained the study to thesubjects together and placed them in sepa-rate rooms as they watched the videotapesand made their ratings. The subjects thenrejoined each other for the debriefing andwere debriefed together, again because oftime constraints. The experimenter thor-oughly explained the purpose of the experi-ment and its importance. Further, the needfor confidentiality and respecting the privacyof subjects in Study 1 was stressed.


Dangerous Tapes

When shown tapes of objectively dan-gerous situations (that is, the two tapes inwhich the confederate later made physicalcontact with the subject), southerners sawless hostility than did northerners. As shownin Table 1, the average anger-minus-amuse-ment rating made by northern subjects was1.95. in contrast to an average rating of 1.61given by southern subjects (p < .04, t(9\) =2.15, medium effect size/= .23.)

Nondangerous Tapes

As in Cohen et al. (1996), we found nodifference between northerners and south-erners in responses to more neutral stimuli.

Table I. Anger-minus Amusement Ratings Made byNorthern and Southern Subjects WatchingObjectively Dangerous ("Blowup") Tapes andNondanfierous Tapes

North

South

Note: Standard deviations are shown in parentheses.Interaction contrast significant alp < .05.

DangerousTapes1.95(.70)L61(.84)

NondangerousTapes

.44(1.01)

.45(.99)


The respective means for northern andsouthern anger minus amusement scoreswere .44 and .45 (p > .90, t(9l) = -0.07). Theinteraction contrast predicting that south-erners would see less hostility than north-erners for dangerous tapes but that no dif-ference would exist for nondangerous tapeswas significant (/-statistic for the contrast =2.37;p < .05,tTiedium effect size/= .25).

It was not the case that southernersexpected less hostility to occur and thereforesaw less. First, there were no differences ontapes that were not dangerous. And second,when we explicitly asked subjects what theythought they would have done if they hadbeen subjects in Study 1, there were no dif-ferences between regions (p > .50).

No differences were present when westandardized and averaged together the twoquestions asking subjects to predict the con-federate's behavior while the tapes played(main effect and interaction ps > .50). In ret-rospect, however, it was not clear that thesewere good questions to ask as the tape wasplaying. Anecdotally it seemed that subjectswere merely parroting back the actions theyhad just seen, predicting that what had justhappened would happen next time.

At the end, when we debriefed subjects,we asked them "If you had to pick one per-son who would have blown up. who would ithave been?" In response to this question,southerners were much more likely thannortherners to guess incorrectly. We exam-ined the responses of southerners who weredebriefed individually or with other south-erners and compared them with those ofnortherners who were debriefed individuallyor with other northerners. (The 16 North-South dyads that were debriefed togetherwere dropped from the analysis.)Southerners were five times more likelythan northerners to guess the wrong personwould blow up: Six of 29 southerners (21%)could not identify the person who blew up,in contrast to only one of 24 northerners(4%) who missed the relevant cues.The dif-ference was marginally significant (.10 > p >.05 (chi-square(l . A' - 53) = 3.13.)) Ofcourse, 79 percent of southerners did guesscorrectly; however, it should be noted that25 percent of subjects would have done soby chance alone.

SUMMARY

When northerners and southernersviewed objectively dangerous situations,southerners perceived less hostility than didnortherners. Thus, not only do southernersnot send clear signals as warning signs(Study 1); they also do not clearly perceivethem when others send them. If. as we havespeculated, this is because southern culturedoes not have the behavioral ritual wheresmall doses of hostility are let out to regu-late another's actions, then these norms forpoliteness are implicated in perpetuating thecycle of violence. And if this is true, we maybe able to show that as norms for politenessgrow stronger within the South, there isactually greater potential that conflicts willexplode out of control and end in seriousviolence. We explore this possibility in Study3.

STUDY 3: POLITENESS ANDHOMICIDE

We know of no data sets on the degreeof politeness in various places in the UnitedStates. However, there is something close. Ina series of clever studies, Robert Levine andcolleagues measured the friendliness andhelpfulness of people in various U.S. cities.They measured factors such as United Waycontributions per capita and had confeder-ates drop pens, ask for change for a quarter,or pretend to be blind people needing helpcrossing the street, among other actions(Levine et al. 1994). They found, not surpris-ingly, that the South was the friendliest andmost helpful region of the country.

Such variables are not clear indicators ofthe politeness norms discussed in Studies 1and 2. However, they may be markers formore general norms of civility and courtesytoward others.^ We were interested in howsuch norms would be related to patterns ofviolence, and we expected that these normswould be associated with different patterns

^ Informal, unscientific lists of polite cities havebeen compiled by etiquette experts. A recent list ofthe 10 most well-mannered cities by "etiquette expertMarjabelle Young Stewart" includes seven cities fromthe South as well as Springfield, Illinois ("Charleston,S. C, Stiil Most Polite" 1997).


of violence in the North and in the Southbecause of the two ways in which politenesscan function: (1) politeness can signal proso-cial intentions and keep interactions goingsmoothly, or (2) it can mask anger and makeit difficult to play the "coordination game"of establishing what is unacceptable, once aconflict starts.

In cultures with established and accept-ed rituals for dealing with conflicts, this sec-ond function is not so important. Thus, in theNorth, one would expect politeness mainlyto smooth personal interactions and thus toreduce the level of violence. In cultures with-out such accepted rituals, however, this sec-ond function can be very important. Thus, aswe have argued, strict politeness norms forsoutherners can sometimes smooth interac-tion. In addition, however, as highlighted inStudies I and 2. they can also stifle effectivesignaling and dispute resolution and ulti-mately lead to more violent eruptions.Therefore, in the South, we may expect thatmore polite places (as proxied by Levine'sindicators) would be relatively more likelyto have explosions of lethal violence.

METHOD

Data on argument-related homicides for1976 to 1983 were collected by Fox andPierce (1987). We limited the homicides westudied to those committed by white maleoffenders and then further refined our sam-ple by including only white males age 15 to39, because this age group is most likely tobe involved in arguments, status conflicts,and games of one-upmanship that end inviolence (see Cohen 1998a).

Argument and conflict-related homi-cides were those which the FBI classified asarising from arguments over money or prop-erty, other arguments, brawls under theinfluence of alcohol or narcotics, and lovers'triangles (Cohen 1998a). Using census infor-mation, we computed homicide rates for thecounties corresponding to Levine's samplefor white males age 15 to 39.̂

•̂ New York City, which is included in Levine'ssample, covers multiple counties and thus wasdropped from this analysis. Also, for the sake of con-sistency with Studies 1 and 2, the two Missouri citiesin Levine's sample were considered southern.


In the North., consistent with the notionthat in "nice" places people don't kill people,more polite and friendly places had lessargument-related homicides (r = -.47, b =-462.61. n=2A.p < .02). In the South, how-ever, this relation did not hold; in fact, itshowed a slight reversal (r - .14, b - 105.08,rt - ll,/7 > .65). When the interaction termfor region and politeness was included in amultiple regression (testing for the differ-ence in northern and southern slopes), theinteraction was significant at p < .05 (inter-action beta = .41). controlling for Levine'ssize of the metropolitan area, percentage ofthe population non-Latino white, and a four-item index of socioeconomic variables (theGini index of income inequality, percentageof young adult population that had droppedout of school, percentage of nonelderly pop-ulation living below the poverty line, andmean family income (reverse scored)).

Thus it appears that norms for polite-ness and conflict resolution which wedescribed above have consequences in thereal world. The data used in Study 3 provideno direct evidence explaining why thisregional difference exists, and these data areonly correlational. However, we think thatStudies 1 and 2 provide a very plausiblecausal mechanism, showing how southernnorms of politeness and anger suppressioncan mask conflict and lead to explosions byinhibiting the clear sending and receiving ofanger signals. Below we briefly discuss prac-tical and theoretical implications of thesestudies, as well as the important limitations.

DISCUSSION

The studies presented here highlight amicro-level process of interpersonal interac-tion that sustains violence in the South. Thehypothesis was that rituals for using smalldoses of anger, rudeness, and confrontation-al behavior to check another person'sactions are more part of the northern thanthe southern behavioral repertoire. As aconsequence, when conflicts escalate, south-

Results were very similar if Missouri was considerednonsouthern (region by politeness interaction p <.03).


erners are less able than northerners tomanage conflict by sending and receivingangry "warning signals." That is, they are lessable to "coordinate" and arrive at a peacefulsolution, in Schelling's terms.

In Study 1 it was shown that southernerswere less likely to clearly send anger signalsas a conflict escalated, as indicated by theirdelayed but sudden, unpredictable escala-tion of hostility. In Study 2, it was shown thatin objectively dangerous circumstances,southerners were less likely to perceive signsof anger in others. This lack of clarity insending and receiving signals can have seri-ous consequences. Conflicts in the South canbubble under the surface, only to erupt in asudden, intense explosion that might havebeen avoided if participants had worked outtheir differences earlier. Study 3 demonstrat-ed that this process seems to be reflected inreal-world death rates: Friendly, helpful("nice") places show different patterns ofargument-related violence in the North thanin the South.

The Issue of Representativeness

Before discussing the practical and theo-retical implications and limitations of thesefindings, it is necessary to address the issueof representativeness. Though southernIllinois was settled by southerners, it doesnot represent the entire South. Further, col-lege students do not represent the entirenorthern and southern population. To reachfirm conclusions on this matter, it would benecessary to gather a probability sample ofthe population.^ Nevertheless, we believethat the findings presented here merit con-sideration for four reasons:

* The problem is not solved even by conductingstudies at a university in the South. First, the popula-tion still consists of college students. Second, for themany demographic measures we examined, the pop-ulations from two different university samples prob-ably could not be matched as closely as they were inthese studies. And third, conducting the study at twodifferent universities would result in differences inexperimental setup, surroundings, and personnel, forwhich we have controlled here. Nevertheless, to fur-ther enhance generalizability. it would be beneficialto conduct a conceptual replication at a southernuniversity.

First, out-of-state southerners andnortherners looked very similar to their in-state counterparts in Studies 1 and 2: and, tothe extent that southern Illinois college stu-dents are unrepresentative of the South, ouranalyses might be expected to underesti-mate the differences that would be found insamples of the wider population (see Nisbettand Cohen 1996). Thus the analysesdescribed above are probably a conservativetest of the hypothesis. Second, one of themerits of using the populations in Studies 1and 2 above is that they are extremely wellmatched on many of the demographic vari-ables for which one would want to control.Rather than having to statistically controlfor these differences, we have northern andsouthern students who are extremely com-parable, with the exception that some grewup in the South and some in the North.Third, although representativeness may bean issue in Studies 1 and 2, it is less of anissue in Study 3. The findings of Study 3 fitwell with the results of Studies 1 and 2 andare based on observations and homiciderates from samples across the country. Andfinally, our findings fit quite well with theethnographic work on southern politenessand conflict styles; thus it seems most parsi-monious to invoke this explanation ratherthan some other to account for the presentpattern of results (Carter 1963; Reed 1986;Wilson 1989). Conclusions from the threestudies reported above are not firm; yet theyseem plausible enough that it is important toexamine their implications and limitations.

Practical Implications and Trade-Of^

Interventions. These studies contain sev-eral practical implications for reducing vio-lence. First, an implication from Study 1 isthat perhaps people in a conflict should betaught to communicate their intentions andemotions in a direct but nonhostile mannerbefore the other person crosses the line andmakes them blisteringly angry. Second, animplication from Study 2 is that perhapspeople should also be taught how to decodethe sometimes subtle warning signals fromothers, so that they can avoid crossing tbeline themselves. And third, if a conflict doesdevelop, there needs to be some nonviolent


way to resolve the dispute that allows bothparties to save face and keep their honorintact (see discussions of possible mecha-nisms in Cohen and Vandello 1997).

Trade-offs. In addition, we must alsoqualify our results by noting that discussionof changing norms for politeness and aggres-sion may be ethnocentric. Indeed, North-South cultural differences can be interpretedin more than one way. That is.

Northern men are spineless wimps with nohonor. They will not defend themselves, theirwomen, or their culture, assuming they havea culture. . . .The South's sense of honor isthe underpinning of southern courtesy andhospitality. An iron fist in a velvet glove.(Nethaway iy96:G5)

And some people may like it that way.In the Old South, in fact, dueling wasdefended on the grounds that it encouragedgreater civility and a "higher refinement"(McWhiney 1988:170). Traces of this reason-ing are still found today (see Will 1993).Michael Hill (1997:19), a history professorand the president of the Southern League,wrote recently in praise of "this life-sustain-ing pugnacity," arguing that "a reputation fortoughness was, and is still, the best keeper ofthe peace, and this is why the South (or atleast the small towns and rural areas)remains an oasis of civilization." In the con-temporary United States, where a recentU.S. News and World Report poll found that"9 out of 10 Americans consider incivility aserious national problem," many northernersmight agree that the southern way of dealingwith things is better, even if there is somecost (Morris 1997:15). Those who bristle atsuch a suggestion need only consider howthey might feel about living in places reput-edly more brusque or more honest than theAmerican North (readers can think of theirown examples) and reflect that they, too,might or might not be willing to pay somecost for "superficial friendliness" in everydaylife.

Although homicide rates in the Southcan be two to four times greater than thosein the North, the chance of dying by homi-cide is stiil very small for most people(Nisbett and Cohen 1996). So perhaps forsome, it may be a reasonable trade-off to

exchange a slightly greater risk of violencefor more politeness, civility, friendliness, andrespect among people in day-to-day living.Further, possessing a sense of honor may bein itself a psychological good that justifies aslightly greater risk of violence (Cohen et al.1998: Pitt-Rivers 1965). Thus the quality-of-life implications of the trade-off betweenpoliteness and violence are not entirelyclear.

Possible Worlds ,

We must note one more limitationbefore leaving the discussion of politenessand violence. That is, we have presented theargument as if violence and "good compa-ny" inevitably go together like yin and yang,subtly reinforcing each other. Yet the factthat they do so in some societies does notnecessarily mean that they do so in alt soci-eties. Multiple stable equilibria may exist fora culture that finds itself in the Hobbesiandilemma.

One equilibrium point is for a culture tosettle on norms for politeness and coopera-tion and to respond with aggression onlywhen provoked. That is the strategydescribed in the empirical studies reportedabove and more generally it is Axelrod's(1984) strategy of tit for tat with playersbeginning by cooperating.

However, another stable equilibriumpoint is possible as well. In this solution, theculture settles on norms where people adopta more belligerent stance, advertising theirwillingness and sometimes their desire tofight. This is the also stable strategy of alldefect, in which people go on the offensiveagainst others in an uncertain and unsafeworld. And there are indeed plenty of cul-tures of honor that have settled on this equi-librium point—from Mediterranean herdersto the Hell's Angels to street gangs intoday's inner city, to take just a few exam-ples (Anderson 1994; Campbell 1965;Thompson 1966).

Multiple Equilibria, Multiple MeaningSystems

As Axelrod has shown, tit for tat ("Dounto others as they have done unto you")and all defect ("Do unto others before they


do unto you") are both stable equilibria.Why a culture settles at one solution and notanother is an open question. But the largerpoint here is that cultures make meaningand form coherent wholes at these equilib-ria. Multiple coherent meaning systems(described by cultural anthropologists) maponto multiple stable equilibria (described byeconomists, political scientists, and gametheorists).

The genius of culture is that it can makesense of many possible worlds through itspower to make meaning. In the cases notedhere, it makes sense of worlds in which vio-lence and politeness go together; and it alsomakes sense of the opposite worlds, in whichviolence and everyday belligerence go hand-in-hand. Both possible solutions are stableand coherent in their self-contained worldsbecause the integrating power of culturegives many possible interaction patterns andrituals a meaning and an internal integrityfor the people in that culture. This is the caseeven if it is not apparent to peoples outsidethe culture, who are working within theirown systems crystallized around differentequilibrium points (Cohen and Vandello1997).

One might speculate that the culturalsystem and the equilibrium solution exertreciprocal influences. Culture probably playsa key role in pushing social systems towardone equilibrium point or another; further, itis probably important in perpetuating thesolutions, once they are arrived at. Culturegives meaning to practices and brings a com-pleteness and integrity to systems, thus rein-forcing the stability and "stickiness" of aparticular equilibrium point that a social sys-tem has reached (Cohen 1998b).

CONCLUSION

The above comments are an essentialqualification of the results. The pattern wehave identified in these studies is one possi-ble, coherent, persisting pattern, but it is notthe only such pattern.

In the present empirical studies, it seemsthat the lack of behavioral rituals for usingsmall doses of anger and warnings to checkanother's actions has very serious conse-quences for southerners. Conflicts bubble

under the surface, only to explode later,because people do not clearly send norclearly receive the signals of anger. Thisprocess was illustrated in the laboratory, butStudy 3 suggests that it is also found in thereal world, with deadly consequences.

Of course, many other forces, rangingfrom the macro to the micro, maintain thesouthern culture of honor. Collective repre-sentations, laws and social policies, the forcesof social organization, and real or expectedpeer enforcement of norms keep this culturestrong. In addition, however, the very micro-level processes of interpersonal interactiondescribed here also seem to piay a role inthe cycle sustaining norms for politeness andviolence in the American South.

REFERENCES

Adams, Jane. 1993. "Resistance to 'Modernity':Southern Illinois Farm Women and the Cultof Domesticity." American Ethnologist20:89-113.

Anderson, Elijah. 1994. "The Code of the Streets."Atlantic 5:Sl-94.

Atack, Jeremy. 1989. "The Evolution of RegionalEconomic Differences within Illinois,1818-1850." Pp. 61-94 in Diversity, Conflict,and State Politics, edited by Peter Nardulli.Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution ofCooperation. New York: Basic Books.

Barone, Michael and Grant Ujifusa. 1991.Almanac of American Politics 1992.Washington, DC: National Journal.

. 1993. Almanac of American Politics 1994.Washington, DC: National Journal.

Birdsall. Stephen and John Florin. 1992. RegionalLandscapes of the United States andCanada. New York: Wiley.

Campbell, Joseph. 1965. "Honour and the Devil."Pp. 112-75 in Honour and Shame, edited byJ. Peristiany. London: Weidenfeld andNicolson

Carter, Hodding. 1963. First Person Rural, GardenCity, NY: Doubleday.

"Charleston. S.C, Still Most Polite." 1997.Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette, January5, p. B5.

Cohen, Dov. 1996, "Law, Social Policy, andViolence." Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 70:961-78.

Cohen. Dov. 1998a. "Culture. Social Organization,and Patterns of Violence." Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology75:408-19.


Cohen, Dov. 1998b. "Cultural Variation."University of Illinois, unpublished manu-script.

Cohen, Dov and Richard Nisbett. 1994. "Self-Protection and the Culture of Honor."Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin20:551-67.'

Cohen, Dov and Nisbett. Richard. 1997. "FieldExperiments Examining the Culture ofHonor." Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin 23:imS^99.

Cohen, Dov, Richard Nisbett, Brian Bowdle. andNorbert Schwarz. 1996. "Insult, Aggression,and the Southern Culture of Honor."Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 70:945-60.

Cohen, Dov and Joseph Vandello. 1998."Meanings of Violence," Journal of LegalStudies 27:50l-\S.

Cohen. Dov and Joseph Vandello. 1997. "TheParadox of Politeness." Forthcoming inCultural Shaping of Violence, edited byMyrdene Anderson.

Cohen, Dov, Joseph Vandello, and AdrianRantilla. 1998. "The Sacred and the Social:Honor and Violence in Cultural Context."Pp. 261-82 in Shame, edited by Paul Gilbertand Bernice Andrews. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Colson. Elizabeth. 1975. Tradition and Contract.Chicago: Aldine.

Daly, Martin and Margo Wilson. 1988. Homicide.New York: Aldine.

Edgerton. Robert. 1971. The Individual inCultural Adaptation. Los Angeles:University of California Press.

Elazar. Daniel. 1970. Cities of the Prairie. NewYork: Basic Books.

. 1972. American Federalism. New York:Cromwell.

. 1994. The American Mosaic. Boulder:Westview.

Ellison. Christopher. 1991. "An Eye for an Eye? ANote on the Southern Subculture ofViolence Thesis." Social Forces 69:1223-39.

Fenton. John. 1966. Midwest Politics. New York:Holt. Rinehart. and Winston.

Fischer, David. 1989. Albion's Seed. New York:Oxford University Press.

Fiske, Alan, Hazel Markus. Shinobu Kitayama.and Richard Nisbett. 1997. "The CulturalMatrix of Social Psychology." University ofMichigan, Unpublished manuscript.

Flynn, Chuck. 1996. "Century of Progress."Champaign-Urbana News Gazette, March31, p. B-3.: 1997. "How Did S. Illinois Come to Be

'Little Egypt?"" Champaign-Urbana NewsGazette, March 23, p. B-3.

. 1998. "North. South Compete during

NCAA Basketball Finals." Champaign-Urbana News Gazette, March 29, p. B-3.

Fox. James and Glenn Pierce. 1987. UniformCrime Reports: United States SupplementaryHomicide Reports, 1976-1983. Boston:Northeastern University.

Frank. Michael, Peter Nardulli, and Paul Green.1989. "Representation, Elections, and Geo-Political Cleavages." Pp. 197-221 inDiversity, Conflict, and State Politics, editedby Peter Nardulli. Urbana: University ofIllinois Press.

Gastil. Raymond. 1975. Cultural Regions of theUnited States. Seattle: University ofWashington Press.

Gould, John. l977t."H\keleia." Journal of HellenicStudies 43:74-103.

Hill, Michael. 1997. "Honor. Violence, andCivilization." Chronicles. August, pp. 17-19.

Knauft, Bruce. 1985. Good Company andViolence. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Levine. Robert, Todd Martinez. Gary Brase, andKerry Sorensen. 1994, "Helping in 36 U.S.Cities." Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 67:69-82.

Matthews, Lois. 1909. The Expansion of NewEngland. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

McWhiney, Grady. 1988. Cracker Culture.Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Miller. Dale and Deborah Prentice. 1994."Collective Errors and Errors about theCollective." Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin 20:541-50.

Morris, David. 1997. "The Civility Wars." UtneReader, March-April, pp. 15-16.

Nardulli. Peter. 1989. "Geopolitical Cleavages,Conflict, and the American States." Pp. 3-27in Diversity, Conflict, and State Politics, edit-ed by Peter Nardulli. Urbana: University ofIllinois Press.

Nardulli. Peter and Michael Krassa. 1989."Regional Animosities in Illinois." Pp.247-305 in Diversity, Conflict, and StatePolitics, edited by Peter Nardulli. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.

Nethaway, Rowland. 1996. "Southern White Menon Honor." Orlando Sentinel, July 28, p. G5.

Nisbett. Richard and Dov Cohen. 1996. Culture ofHonor. Boulder: Westview.

Pillsbury, Richard. 1989. "Landscape, Cultural."Pp. 533-41 in Encyclopedia of SouthernCulture, edited by Charles Wilson andWilliam Ferris. Chapel Hill: University ofNorth Carolina Press.

Pitt-Rivers. Julian. 1965. "Honor and SocialStatus." Pp. 21-77 in Honour and Shame,edited by J. Peristiany. London: Weidenfeldand Nicolson.


Powers, Richard. 1953. Planting Corn Belt Culture.Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society.

Reaves. Andrew and Richard Nisbett. 1997. "TheCultural Ecology of Rural WhiteHomicide." University of Alabama, unpub-lished manuscript.

Reed, John. 1976. "The Heart of Dixie." SocialForces 54:925-29.. 1986. Southern Folk. Athens: University of

Georgia Press.Reed, John, James Kohls, and Carol Hanchette.

1990. "The Dissolution of Dixie and theChanging Shape of the South." Social Forces69:221-33.

Rosenthal, Robert and Ralph Rosnow. (1991).Essentials of Behavioral Research. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Schelling, Thomas. 1966. The Strategy of Conflict.New York: Oxford University Press.

Sutton, Robert. 1989. "The Politics ofRegionalism, Nineteenth Century Style."Pp. 95-116 in Diversity, Conflict, and StatePolitics, edited by Peter Nardulli. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.

Swidler, Ann. 1986. "Culture in Action." AmericanSociological Review 51:273-86.

Thompson, Hunter. 1966. Hell's Angels. NewYork: Ballantine.

Triandis, Harry. 1994. Culture and Social Behavior,New York: McGraw-Hill.

Vandello, Joseph and Dov Cohen. 1999. "Pattemsof Individualism and Collectivism Acrossthe United States." Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 77:279-92.

Weiss, Michael. 1994. Latitudes and Attitudes.Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

Whitt. H. P., Janice Corzine, and Lin Huff-Corzine. 1995. "Where Is the South?" Pp.127-48 in Trends, Risks, and Interventions inLethal Violence, edited by C Block and R.Block. Washington, D.C: U.S. Departmentof Justice.

Will, George. 1993. "Are We 'A Nation ofCowards'?" Newsweek. November 15, pp.93-94.

Wilson. Charles. 1989. "Manners." Pp. 634-37 inEncyclopedia of Southern Culture, edited byCharles Wilson and William Ferris. ChapelHill: University of North Carolina Press.

Wirt, Frederick. 1989. "The Changing Social Basesof Regionalism." Pp. 31-60 in Diversity,Conflict, and State Politics, edited by PeterNardulli. Urbana: University of IllinoisPress.

Zelinsky, Wilbur, 1973. The Cultural Geography ofthe United States. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Dov Cohen is an Associate Professor at the University of Waterloo. His research interestsinclude studying issues of cultural persistence and change.

Joseph A. Vandello is currently a doctoral student at the University of Illinois. He studies cul-tural influences on violence.

Sylvia Puente is currently a doctoral student at the University of Illinois. Her research interestsinclude investigating (a) factors that influence perceptions of domestic violence and (b) howbattered women make sense of their life experiences and construct personal meaning in thecontext of a battered-women's shelter,

Adrian K. Rantilla is currently a doctoral student at ihe University of Illinois. His researchfocuses on group and individual-level decision making, aggregation of expert opinion, andattribution of responsibility.

Date post:	31-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongquynh
View:	218 times
Download:	2 times

When You Call Me That, Smile! How Norms for Politeness...

Documents