Male Honor and Female Fidelity: Implicit Cultural Scripts That Perpetuate Domestic Violence Joseph A. Vandello University of South Florida Dov Cohen University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Two studies explored how domestic violence may be implicitly or explicitly sanctioned and reinforced in cultures where honor is a salient organizing theme. Three general predictions were supported: (a) female infidelity damages a man’s reputation, particularly in honor cultures; (b) this reputation can be partially restored through the use of violence; and (c) women in honor cultures are expected to remain loyal in the face of jealousy-related violence. Study 1 involved participants from Brazil (an honor culture) and the United States responding to written vignettes involving infidelity and violence in response to infidelity. Study 2 involved southern Anglo, Latino, and northern Anglo participants witnessing a “live” incident of aggression against a woman (actually a confederate) and subsequently interacting with her. Relationship violence occurs across all cultures and social groups. Ultimately, much of this conflict and violence between male and female romantic partners derives from jealousy and fidelity concerns (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst, 1982). In Daly and Wilson’s (1988a, 1988b) review of spousal homicides across a wide range of cul- tures, they concluded that in the majority of cases, the leading motive is the male’s suspicion of infidelity or desertion. Although male violence against women exists in all cultures, there is also great cultural variation in patterns of domestic violence. Cultures vary tremendously in the prevalence of domestic violence, both cross-nationally and among cultural groups within nations (cf. Heise, Pitanguy, & Germain, 1994; Straus & Smith, 1990; Van- dello & Cohen, 2003). In addition, the events that trigger episodes of violence may differ across cultures, and the “appropriate” responses to these events may differ across groups as well. For example, some cultures have social customs sanctioning murder of women in response to the most egregious infractions to family “honor” (Baker, Gregware, & Cassidy, 1999; Beyer, 1999; Ginat, 1987). Many cultures often have had more formal legal traditions defending a man’s right to beat or even kill his wife in response to infidelity (M. Wilson & Daly, 1992). 1 In this article, we address honor as a cultural syndrome (Trian- dis, 1994, 1996) and explore how facets of this syndrome can contribute to male-on-female violence. Three features of this syn- drome are examined here by comparing honor and nonhonor cultures using experiments that involve paper-and-pencil vignettes and live interactions. Specifically, we test the hypotheses that in honor cultures as compared with nonhonor cultures (a) female fidelity will cause greater damage to a male’s reputation, (b) this reputation can be partially restored through the use of violence, and (c) women are more often expected to remain loyal in the face of such violence. Male Honor and Domestic Violence Cultures around the world vary in the importance attached to the construct of honor. In one sense, the definition of honor is con- sistent across cultures. Almost all cultures place value on honor defined as virtuous behavior, good moral character, integrity, and altruism, and this ideal holds for males as well as females. In some cultures, however, honor carries an additional social significance as a theme around which most interpersonal life is organized. Scholars such as Pitt-Rivers (1966) have noted two definitions of 1 Female-on-male violence as well as violence within gay and lesbian couples occurs. We chose to focus here on male violence against women because this violence is much more likely to occur than female-on-male violence and because much of the female-on-male violence is likely to be a response to male aggression (Daly & Wilson, 1988b). Female hetero- sexual violence (and gay and lesbian violence) may have different etiolo- gies than male violence, and thus the framework for the present article may be quite inappropriate for analyses of these issues. Joseph A. Vandello, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida; Dov Cohen, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. The work was supported in part by a dissertation completion fellowship from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Graduate College, by National Science Foundation Grant 9808164, and by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Grant 31037. We thank the following people for their help in the development and execution of the studies: Carrie Debruler, Rebecca Denosaquo, Renae Franiuk, Kelly Frankovich, Demetrios Georgacopoulos, Chris Georgaco- poulos, Anna Lindwedel, Brett McGovern, Tiffany Meier, Beth Oshack, Sylvia Puente, Jesus Ruiz, Jon Schmidgall, Jeff Stone, and Maria Talarico. Also, Andrea Aguiar, Adriana Aguiar, Marina Aguiar, Marcos Aguiar, Nancy Cardia, Betty Siqueira, and Fernanda Siqueira provided invaluable help with Study 1. Special thanks are also due to the members of Joseph A. Vandello’s dissertation committee: Dov Cohen, Harry Triandis, Ed Diener, Fritz Drasgow, and Louise Fitzgerald. Finally, we thank Rick Hoyle for his helpful comments on an earlier version of the article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joseph A. Vandello, Department of Psychology, PCD 4118G, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620-7200. E-mail: vandello@chuma1.cas .usf.edu Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2003, Vol. 84, No. 5, 997–1010 0022-3514/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.997 997