A great deal of research has explored the outcomes of honor ideology, a cultural framework that places central value on personal reputation as perceived by others (Brown, 2016; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996). Honor is hypothesized to emerge as a survival strategy in environments defined by resource scarcity and a lack of effective law enforcement (Nowak et al., 2016). In such environments, individuals bolster themselves against the risk of theft or attack by actively cultivating a reputation as someone who should not be “messed with” (Nisbett & Cohen, 1996). Honor endorsing males seek a reputation for strength, toughness, competence, and intolerance of disrespect (Barnes, Brown & Osterman, 2012; Saucier et al., 2016) and both men and women emphasize reputation as central to their personal honor (Barnes et al., 2014; Foster et al., 2021; Rodriguez Mosquera, 2016).

Much research has focused on honor’s link to retaliatory violence in the defense of reputation, demonstrating that honor-endorsers are more likely to respond with violence when they feel their reputation has been threatened in some way (e.g., Barnes, Brown & Osterman, 2012, 2014; Chalman et al., 2021; Cohen & Nisbett, 1994; O’Dea et al., 2019; Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2002a; 2002b). However, research has also linked honor endorsement to outcomes beyond retaliatory aggression, including heightened suicide risk (Bock et al., 2019; Crowder & Kemmelmeier, 2017), reticence to seek help for mental health issues (Brown, Imura & Mayeux, 2014; Brown, Imura & Osterman, 2014), issues of gun ownership, gun safety, and gun violence (Bock et al., 2021; Osterman & Brown, 2011), and refusal to vaccinate children against stigmatized diseases (Foster et al., 2021). It should be noted that many of these findings are rooted around the premise that honor endorsers make decisions about various behaviors with a keen awareness of how those decisions will affect their reputation in the eyes of others (for reviews, see Brown 2016; Uskul et al., 2019).

Most relevant to the current research is the finding that honor endorsers are more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors. As investigated by Barnes, Brown and Tamborski (2012), it was found that honor-oriented states within the U.S. demonstrated higher rates of accidental deaths (presumably due to risk-taking behaviors), and that individual-level masculine honor concerns were associated with a willingness to engage in risky behaviors across a variety of behavioral domains. Barnes and colleague Barnes, Brown and Tamborski (2012) interpreted these results to indicate that honor motivates its adherents to engage in risky behavior to garner and maintain a reputation for toughness, strength, and competence. It has also been observed that honor endorsing men are more likely to seek out dangerous situations that they perceive as being likely to bolster their reputation, and that they perceive such situations as being less dangerous and rate themselves as being more likely to endure prolonged risk in such a situation (Schiffer et al., 2022). Within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, honor was observed to predict risky health behaviors including not wearing a mask (Kemmelmeier & Jami, 2021), as well as negative attitudes towards risk prevention like social distancing or restrictions on commerce (Schiffer et al., 2021).

It should also be noted that risk is simply an inherent part of honor norms for both men and women. The study of honor culture within an American context originated from studies of southern homicide rates emerging from interpersonal arguments (Nisbett & Cohen, 1996). Later research has clarified that men are expected to retaliate to reputation threats using violence without any thought of the potential risks inherent in any violent confrontation (Uskul et al., 2019, 2023). Furthermore, beyond the obvious risks to physical welfare, honor-based retribution also represents a threat to personal and financial welfare, as it increases the risk of arrest and incarceration (Campbello de Souza et al., 2016).

Similar inherent risks exist for women in cultures of honor. Women’s displays of disloyalty, or even the perception of the same, are interpreted as threats to the honor of a woman’s husband/father, who often “restore” their honor by violence against the woman in question, producing concrete increases in risks of domestic abuse and violence against women within honor states (Brown et al., 2018). However, honor-endorsing women still endorse these norms, despite the potential harm to themselves (Uskul et al., 2023), indicating a tolerance of risk of harm on their part.

It is therefore likely that honor imbues its adherents with certain cognitive biases to facilitate the pursuit of reputation by downplaying the perceived risks of dangerous reputation-enhancing behavior. One such bias might be perceived invulnerability.

Perceived invulnerability

Perceived invulnerability is an optimistic, self-serving cognitive bias that consistently plays a role in risk-taking behaviors across the lifespan (Duggan et al., 2000; Millstein & Halpern-Felsher, 2001, 2002; Potard et al., 2018; Ravert, 2009; Ravert et al., 2009). Those who perceive themselves as invulnerable are less likely to consider the dangers inherent in a situation (Biggs et al., 2014), which predisposes them to violent/aggressive responses (Barry et al., 2009; Chapin, 2001) and other potentially dangerous behaviors, including drinking and driving (Chan et al., 2010; Potard et al., 2018), smoking and drug use (Benet & Kraft, 2019; Milam et al., 2000; Morrell et al., 2016), and risky sexual behavior (Moore & Rosenthal, 1991).

Peer risk-taking behavior and anticipated perception of one’s peers are known antecedents of perceived invulnerability and subsequent risk-taking (Beal et al., 2001; Steinberg & Monahan, 2007). Individuals, especially adolescents, look to their peers as behavioral guides and internalize norms, scripts, and values about invulnerability to risk-taking outcomes (Greenwald et al., 2018; Oetting & Beauvais, 1987). Therefore, in a social environment where risky behaviors are tolerated, encouraged, or rewarded with tangible benefits, individuals are more likely to develop perceived invulnerability as a facilitative cognitive bias. We believe this to be the case in cultures of honor.

Honor ideology as an antecedent of invulnerability

As a cultural framework, honor ideology contains norms, values, and behavioral scripts that shape cultural adherents’ decision-making processes (Oyserman, 2017). Certain features of honor are inherently linked to risk, specifically its developing in threatening environments (Nowak et al., 2016), encouraging risky behaviors to violently defend reputation “at all costs” (Nisbett & Cohen, 1996; O’Dea et al., 2019), and prizing reputations for strength, toughness, and competence (Barnes, Brown & Tamborski, 2012). Honor endorsers are thus likely to expect risk as a part of their everyday lives. While it is possible that honor endorsers still fully appreciate, understand, and tolerate this risk, research indicates that individuals who perceive themselves as personally vulnerable to risk are less likely to engage in risky behavior (e.g., Roe-Berning & Straker, 1997), which contrasts with findings that honor endorsers are more likely to engage in risk-taking. It is therefore plausible that honor endorsers understand that risk-taking is often required to garner and maintain their reputations, and thus develop perceptions of invulnerability to facilitate such behaviors.

It follows that the previously identified link between honor and risk-taking across a variety of domains (Barnes, Brown & Tamborski, 2012) would be explained by perceived invulnerability. We specifically predicted a significant indirect effect from masculine honor, through perceived invulnerability, to the risk-taking domains that had previously been linked with masculine honor by Barnes, Brown and Tamborski (2012). Our measure of perceived invulnerability (Lapsley & Duggan, 2014) contained three subscales: (1) general invulnerability (a general disbelief that one can be physically or psychologically harmed), (2) danger invulnerability (a specific disbelief that one would be personally harmed by engaging in risky behavior), and (3) interpersonal invulnerability (the belief that one cannot be emotionally or psychologically hurt by the opinions of others). We predicted that the general invulnerability and danger invulnerability subscales would both explain the links between honor ideology and the risk-taking subscales. We did not believe that interpersonal invulnerability would play a significant mediating role in these relationships because honor ideology is predicated on the assumption that one can indeed be harmed by the opinions of others, as reputation is not self-contained or self-granted, but depends upon the regard that others hold for you (Brown, 2016; Leung & Cohen, 2011).

Method

Sample and procedure

Participants were 220 college students (n = 89 [40.5%] males, n = 131 [59.5%] females) from a large research institution in the southern United States. Most participants identified as white, non-Latino/a (62.7%), with the remainder of the sample identifying as Asian (10.9%), Latino/Hispanic (9.5%), African American (8.2%), Native American (3.6%), Middle Eastern (1.8%) or “Other” (3.2%). All participants completed an informed consent document prior to participating in the study. Participants then filled out a demographic questionnaire, followed by our honor measure, the covariates, the measure of perceived invulnerability, and the measures of risk-taking.

This study was conducted in accordance with APA ethical standards. All participants passed all attention checks, and thus no participants’ data were excluded from these analyses. Power analysis was conducted to determine the needed sample size for detecting indirect effects with moderate effect sizes, revealing a necessary sample of n = 218—this sample was, therefore, deemed to be sufficient (Schoemann et al., 2017).

Measures

Honor

Previous research on honor ideology and risk-taking has examined honor’s masculine facet. Although the norms of masculine honor apply to males, endorsement of this facet has been shown to impact honor-related attitudes in women as well (Brown, Imura & Mayeux, 2014; Brown, Imura & Osterman, 2014; Chalman et al., 2021). We therefore measured masculine honor ideology using the Honor Ideology for Manhood scale (HIM; Barnes, Brown & Osterman, 2012). The HIM is a 16-item (α = 0.94) Likert-type scale reflecting beliefs about how an “honorable” man should behave. It consists of items regarding reputational concerns (e.g., A real man is seen as tough in the eyes of his peers) and the use of retaliation to honor threats (e.g., A man has the right to act with physical aggression toward another man who calls him an insulting name) that are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 7 = Strongly Agree), so that higher scores indicated greater endorsement of masculine honor norms. The final score consisted of the arithmetic average response across all 16 items.

Risk-taking

We utilized the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale (DOSPERT; Weber et al., 2002), utilized by Barnes, Brown and Tamborski (2012) as our measure of risk-taking. The DOSPERT consists of 40 items representing risky behaviors across a variety of domains. Responses are provided using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = extremely unlikely to 5 = extremely likely). The DOSPERT contains five subscales, one for each specific behavioral domain: ethical behavior (e.g. Not returning a wallet you found that contains $200; α = 0.85), financial behavior (e.g. Investing 5% of your annual income in a very speculative stock; α = 0.85), health/safety behavior (e.g. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet; α = 0.66), recreational behavior (e.g. Bungee jumping off a tall bridge; α = 0.81), and social behavior (e.g. Moving to a city far away from your extended family; α = 0.66). In all subscales, higher scores indicated greater tolerance of/likelihood of engaging in risky behaviors, and the final score for each subscale consisted of that subscale’s arithmetic average.

Perceived invulnerability

We used the Adolescent Invulnerability Scale (AIS; Lapsley & Duggan, 2014; Duggan et al., 2000) to measure perceived invulnerability. Although developed for use in adolescents, this scale has been used in other populations, including college students, the demographic from which we drew our sample (Ravert, 2009). The AIS consists of 21 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), divided into three subscales; general invulnerability, danger invulnerability, and interpersonal invulnerability, each of which have been linked to different risk-taking outcomes (Lapsley & Duggan, 2014). General invulnerability represents a belief in one’s inability to be injured either psychologically or physically, and is assessed by nine items (e.g., I’m unlikely to be injured in an accident; α = 0.85). Danger invulnerability, representing a specific disbelief that one might be physically harmed because of risky behavior, is assessed by six items (e.g., Safety rules do not apply to me; α = 0.79). Interpersonal invulnerability, representing a belief that the personal opinions of others cannot hurt the self, is assessed by six items (e.g., What people say about me has no effect at all; α = 0.81). For all three subscales, higher scores indicated a higher perception of invulnerability, and the final score was calculated as the arithmetic mean of the items.

Covariates

To account for the possibility that other factors play a role in the Honor-Risk-Taking link, we controlled for participant gender (0 = male, 1 = female), as well as the Extraversion and Agreeableness subscales of the 10-item BFI (Rammstedt & John, 2007) and Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965). This was done both to remain consistent with prior research on the link between honor and risk-taking (see Barnes, Brown & Tamborski, 2012) and to control for known associations between being male, higher in extraversion and agreeableness, and lower in self-esteem with an increased tendency towards risk-taking behaviors (Byrnes et al., 1999; McElroy et al., 2007; McGhee et al., 2012).

Results

All materials and data are available at the following link: https://osf.io/uzkhp/?view_only=0f16f3265c79483c985d 58715f0a2279. Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for the variables of interest can be found in Table 1. The HIM was significantly correlated with higher general invulnerability, danger invulnerability, and interpersonal invulnerability scores (all rs > 0.23, ps < 0.01). The HIM was associated with higher health/safety risk-taking scores (r = .18, p = .01) as well as higher ethical risk-taking scores (r = .14, p = .05). Interestingly, the HIM was associated with lower social risk-taking scores (r = − .14, p = .05) and lower financial risk-taking scores (r = − .16, p = .02).

To determine if vulnerability perceptions mediate the significant associations between honor and the risk-taking outcomes, as well as to determine which vulnerability subscale might be responsible for such an effect, we ran mediation analyses for the Health/Safety and Ethical risk-taking subscales, testing each of the vulnerability subscales separately. Specifically, we assessed if the relationships between the HIM and the two risk subscales would be mediated by the General Invulnerability subscale, the Danger Invulnerability subscale, and the Interpersonal Invulnerability subscale, as demonstrated in three separate mediation analyses for each dependent variable. Mediation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS macro in SPSS (Hayes, 2018) using 5,000 bootstrapped samples to attain estimates of confidence intervals, which are significant at p < .05 if the interval does not contain the integer of 0. Analyses were conducted while controlling for gender, extraversion, agreeableness, and self-esteem.

Health/Safety risk-taking

We first assessed the indirect effect of the HIM on the Health/ Safety risk-taking subscale through each of the invulnerability subscales while controlling for gender, extraversion, agreeableness, and self-esteem. Results indicated a significant indirect effect of the HIM on the Health/Safety risk-taking subscale through the General Invulnerability subscale (Mediated Effect—ME = 0.02, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [0.003, 0.050], p < .05) and through the Danger Invulnerability subscale (ME = 0.03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.002, 0.065], p < .05). No significant indirect effect was found from the HIM to the Health/Safety subscale through the Interpersonal Invulnerability subscale (ME = 0.007, SE = 0.007, 95% CI [-0.006, 0.023], p > .05).

Ethical risk-taking

Next, we assessed the indirect effect of the HIM on the Ethical risk-taking subscale through each of the invulnerability subscales while controlling for gender, extraversion, agreeableness, and self-esteem. Results indicated a significant indirect effect from the HIM to the Ethical risk-taking subscale through the General Invulnerability subscale (ME = 0.03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.003, 0.064], p < .05), although no significant indirect effect was found from the HIM to the Ethical risk-taking subscale through the Danger Invulnerability subscale (ME = 0.03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.002, 0.073], p > .05) nor the Interpersonal Invulnerability subscale (ME = 0.007, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.004, 0.023], p < .05).

Additional analyses

Although the HIM had no significant total effect on the Recreational risk-taking subscale, and its effects to the Social and Financial subscale were in the opposite direction, we conducted mediational analyses on these variables for multiple reasons. First, a total effect is not a necessary prerequisite to conduct tests of indirect effects (see Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Thus, it is possible that a significant indirect effect may exist from the HIM to the Recreational subscale despite the total effect being non-significant. Second, an indirect effect may still exist even if the total effect is negative (Davis, 1985; Mackinnon et al., 2000). Therefore, we ran similar analyses for each of the remaining dependent variables and with each of the invulnerability subscales as mediators. While the HIM had no significant indirect effect on Social or Financial risk, (all | MEs | < 0.01, all ps > 0.05), a significant indirect effect existed to the Recreational risk subscale through both the General Invulnerability subscale (ME = 0.03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.003, 0.063], p < .05) and the Danger Invulnerability subscale (ME = 0.02, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [0.001, 0.054], p < .05). The analogous pathway from the HIM to the Recreational subscale through the Interpersonal Invulnerability subscale was not significant (ME = 0.01, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.006, 0.035], p > .05). All indirect effects can be found in Table 2.

Discussion

This study sought to further illuminate the link between masculine honor endorsement and risk-taking addressed by Barnes, Brown and Tamborski (2012) by investigating the role perceived invulnerability as a mediator in this relationship. Results supported this hypothesis, with honor exhibiting significant indirect effects on health/safety, ethical, and recreational risk-taking subscales through perceived invulnerability. However, financial and social risks showed no significant relationship, direct or indirect, with masculine honor.

These results are consistent with research on masculine honor norms, as health and safety risks are likely the most culturally relevant for present-day honor endorsers. Enduring such risks communicates toughness and competence, corresponding to the finding that honor endorsers refuse protective measures that they feel would compromise such a reputation, including protective measures in the areas of interpersonal aggression, mental health, and health prevention (Brown & Osterman, 2014; Brown & Tamborski, 2014; Foster et al., 2021; Kemmelmeier & Jami, 2021). Recreational risks likewise signal toughness and competence (Schiffer et al., 2022). The relationship between honor and ethical risk-taking corresponds to the finding that honor endorsers do not care about “fighting fair” when defending their reputations but are primarily concerned with vengeance itself (O’Dea et al., 2019).

The lack of significant effects for financial and social risks also make sense within the context of honor. Such financial risks may jeopardize an individual’s ability to provide for and protect their family, which runs counter to honor serving as a survival strategy (Nowak et al., 2016), and may therefore not carry a reputation of toughness in the same way that safety or recreational risks do. Social risks also conflict with honor norms, as doing or saying things that make one unpopular could decrease one’s social standing in an honor culture and make them an easier target for insults and abuse (Nisbett & Cohen, 1996).

Our results also indicated a relationship to exist between masculine honor endorsement and interpersonal invulnerability, although the latter did not serve as a significant mediator of any of the risk outcomes we had observed. Nevertheless, this is an interesting finding, and one contrary to our expectations. We had assumed that because honor is predicated on the opinions and judgements of others, rather than being something inherent to one’s view of one’s self (Leung & Cohen, 2011), that honor endorsers would not view themselves as being invulnerable to interpersonal threats. However, we found a modest positive correlation to exist. It is possible that this finding indicates that although honor-oriented men must be vigilant against reputation threats, they must also see their reputation as unassailable, or at the very least see themselves as fully competent of defending that reputation, and therefore feel invulnerable to interpersonal threat. However, it is also possible that honor endorsers are simply reticent to report feeling interpersonal vulnerability, as doing so might be seen as akin to admitting weakness. Future research could benefit from examining potential manifestations of this link between honor and interpersonal invulnerability, especially given recent investigations into honor and social risks, such as relational aggression (e.g., Foster et al., 2022). Future research might also benefit from examining honor-driven perceptions of the social desirability of endorsing risk-taking behaviors.

Overall, our results have specific implications for policy and education efforts that seek to address risk-taking behaviors. Previous research has indicated that one way to dispel illusions of invulnerability, and thereby decrease risky behavior, is to make the risky behavior’s potential consequences salient and relevant (Biggs et al., 2014; Greenwald et al., 2018; Morrell et al., 2016). Research on honor ideology has similarly suggested that with targeted educational interventions, individuals can be made willing to re-evaluate and even change their minds regarding even relatively fundamental aspects of honor ideology (Cihangir, 2013). The creation and implementation of honor-oriented educational interventions should be of primary of importance to educators and policy makers given that the honor-risk relationship has been tied to accidental death rates in cultures of honor (Barnes, Brown & Tamborski, 2012). It might also be beneficial to address the cultural concerns and values that help to create the perceptions of invulnerability that produce risky behavior in the first place, such as by suggesting that failure to seek mental or physical healthcare out of a fear of appearing “weak” might actually have the opposite effect of leaving one weaker and thus unable to defend oneself from attack. Future research should investigate the efficacy of such potential interventions.

Limitations and conclusion

There are a few limitations inherent in this research. First, the sample consisted of young college students from a large, southwestern university. Although this is the same population studied by Barnes, Brown and Tamborski (2012), exploring these effects in more age-diverse samples may help to understand risk-taking in middle and late adulthood—this would be particularly interesting considering that adherence to cultural norms tends to increase with age whereas risk-taking tends to decrease (Duell et al., 2018; Na et al., 2017). Considering the self-report nature of the DOSPERT, it would be of interest to examine actual behavioral outcomes.

It should also be noted that given the confidence intervals and zero-order correlations, our results can be interpreted as having small effect sizes, indicating that there is still much work to be done in this area, such as experimental approaches or using longitudinal approaches that might allow for the establishment of causality and directionality. However, it is still worth noting that small effect sizes can be meaningful, especially for long-term, cumulative phenomena such as cultural norms and values (Funder & Ozer, 2019). Thus, while these results should be interpreted cautiously, we do still believe them to be meaningful.

Despite these limitations, we feel the current findings do help to help clarify the self-report data of Barnes, Brown and Tamborski (2012) by explaining the mechanism underlying their effects. We also feel that these data, in combination with the self-report and regional data of Barnes, Brown and Tamborski (2012), helps to clarify the cultural impact of honor on risk-taking.

Overall, we believe that our research represents an important step forward in both the study of honor and the study of risk-taking behaviors. By establishing honor as an antecedent of perceived invulnerability, we have expanded the study of risk-taking by highlighting the importance of considering cultural concerns, values, and beliefs when trying to understand the motives and mechanisms that underlie risk-taking behavior.

Summary

Honor ideology, a cultural framework centered on an individual's public reputation, is thought to develop in environments lacking resources or effective law enforcement. In these settings, cultivating a tough image helps deter threats. Men endorsing honor strive for a reputation of strength and intolerance of disrespect, while both men and women view reputation as crucial to their honor. Research links this ideology to various outcomes, including retaliatory violence, increased suicide risk, avoidance of mental health support, issues with gun ownership, and vaccine refusal. These behaviors are often driven by a keen awareness of how they will impact one's standing in the community.

This honor-driven focus on reputation has been consistently associated with a higher likelihood of engaging in risky behaviors, such as those that lead to accidental deaths, seeking out dangerous situations, and neglecting health precautions. Risk-taking is an inherent part of honor norms for both men and women, who are expected to face potential physical, legal, or personal dangers to defend their honor. Despite these clear risks, individuals in honor cultures often accept or endorse such actions. This suggests that honor may foster cognitive biases that minimize perceived dangers, making risky, reputation-enhancing behaviors seem less threatening. One such bias is perceived invulnerability, an optimistic belief that one is unlikely to be harmed. This bias is known to influence a range of risky behaviors, including aggression, impaired driving, substance use, and unsafe sexual practices. The study hypothesized that honor ideology, with its emphasis on toughness, promotes this sense of invulnerability, thereby explaining the link between honor and risk-taking.

The study involved 220 college students from a university in the southern United States, comprising diverse backgrounds. Participants completed surveys measuring masculine honor ideology, various forms of risk-taking, and perceived invulnerability. The honor measure assessed beliefs about an "honorable" man's behavior, including reputational concerns and retaliation. Risk-taking was evaluated across five areas: ethical, financial, health/safety, recreational, and social. Perceived invulnerability was measured by subscales for general invulnerability (belief in not being harmed), danger invulnerability (belief in not being harmed by risky behavior), and interpersonal invulnerability (belief that others' opinions cannot cause emotional harm). Gender, personality traits, and self-esteem were also controlled for. The primary goal was to determine if perceived invulnerability explained the observed connections between honor and risk-taking.

Key findings revealed that masculine honor ideology was significantly associated with higher levels of general, danger, and interpersonal invulnerability. Honor was also linked to increased health/safety and ethical risk-taking, though it correlated with lower social and financial risk-taking. Further analysis indicated that perceived invulnerability significantly mediated the relationship between honor and certain risk-taking behaviors. Specifically, both general and danger invulnerability explained the link between honor and health/safety risk-taking, while general invulnerability also explained the connection to ethical risk-taking. Furthermore, general and danger invulnerability played a role in explaining recreational risk-taking. As anticipated, interpersonal invulnerability did not significantly explain these relationships, and no significant indirect effects were found for social or financial risk-taking. While the observed effects were small, they offer meaningful insights into how cultural influences shape behavior.

The study's results largely supported the hypothesis that perceived invulnerability helps explain why masculine honor endorsement leads to increased health/safety, ethical, and recreational risk-taking. These findings are consistent with how honor cultures value displays of toughness and a willingness to prioritize vengeance over fairness. The lack of a link between honor and financial or social risks is understandable, as these behaviors could undermine an individual's ability to provide for family or maintain social standing. An unexpected finding was a positive correlation between honor and interpersonal invulnerability, possibly suggesting a perceived ability to withstand emotional harm from others or a reluctance to admit weakness. This research has important implications for interventions aimed at reducing risky behaviors. Educational programs could focus on highlighting the potential consequences of risky actions and challenging cultural norms that equate seeking help with weakness. Study limitations include the use of a college student sample, self-reported data, and small effect sizes. Nevertheless, the research clarifies the psychological mechanisms linking honor to risk-taking, underscoring the critical role of cultural values in understanding such behaviors.

A significant amount of research has examined honor ideology, a cultural system where a person's reputation, as seen by others, holds great importance. This belief system is thought to develop as a survival tactic in places where resources are scarce and law enforcement is weak. In such settings, individuals build a reputation as someone not to be challenged, helping to protect against theft or attack. Males who believe in honor strive for a reputation of strength, toughness, skill, and intolerance of disrespect. Both men and women in honor cultures view reputation as central to their personal honor.

Much of the research has linked honor to violent reactions when a person's reputation is threatened. However, honor beliefs have also been connected to other serious outcomes, such as a higher risk of suicide, reluctance to seek help for mental health issues, concerns about gun ownership and violence, and even refusal to vaccinate children against certain diseases. Many of these findings suggest that people who endorse honor make decisions based on how these actions will affect their reputation.

A key finding for this study is that individuals who endorse honor are more likely to take risks. Past research has shown that U.S. states with strong honor cultures have higher rates of accidental deaths, possibly due to risky behaviors. At an individual level, concerns about masculine honor have been linked to a willingness to engage in various risky actions. Researchers suggest that honor motivates people to take risks to gain and maintain a reputation for being tough, strong, and capable. Studies have also observed that honor-endorsing men are more likely to seek out dangerous situations they believe will boost their reputation. They may also see such situations as less dangerous and believe they can handle prolonged risk. During the COVID-19 pandemic, honor beliefs predicted risky health behaviors like not wearing a mask and negative attitudes toward safety measures such as social distancing.

Risk is an inherent part of honor norms for both men and women. For men, honor often involves reacting violently to threats to reputation, without considering the physical or legal dangers this may bring. For women in honor cultures, perceived disloyalty can threaten the honor of a male family member, leading to violence against the woman. Despite these potential harms, women who endorse honor still uphold these norms, indicating a tolerance for personal risk.

It is therefore suggested that honor might cause people to think differently about danger, making them underestimate the risks of behaviors that could improve their reputation. One such way of thinking is called perceived invulnerability.

Perceived Invulnerability

Perceived invulnerability is an optimistic way of thinking where individuals believe they are less likely to experience harm. This belief often influences risky behaviors throughout a person's life. Those who see themselves as invulnerable are less likely to consider the dangers in a situation, which can lead to aggressive responses and other potentially dangerous actions, including drinking and driving, smoking and drug use, and risky sexual behavior.

The risky behaviors of peers and what individuals expect their peers to think are known factors that lead to perceived invulnerability and, in turn, more risk-taking. Individuals, especially adolescents, often look to their peers for behavioral guidance and adopt norms and values about being immune to the negative outcomes of risky actions. Therefore, in social settings where risky behaviors are accepted, encouraged, or rewarded, individuals are more likely to develop perceived invulnerability as a way to make such behaviors easier. This is believed to be the case in cultures of honor.

Honor Ideology Leading to Invulnerability

As a cultural system, honor ideology includes norms, values, and ways of behaving that guide how people make decisions. Certain aspects of honor are inherently linked to risk, such as its development in threatening environments, its encouragement of risky behaviors to violently defend reputation "at all costs," and its emphasis on reputations for strength, toughness, and competence. Honor endorsers are thus likely to expect risk as a part of their everyday lives. While it is possible that honor endorsers still fully appreciate and tolerate this risk, research indicates that individuals who perceive themselves as vulnerable to risk are less likely to engage in risky behavior. This contrasts with findings that honor endorsers are more likely to take risks. It is therefore plausible that honor endorsers understand that risk-taking is often needed to gain and keep their reputations, and thus develop perceptions of invulnerability to enable such behaviors.

It is therefore expected that perceived invulnerability helps explain the connection between honor and risk-taking behaviors. Specifically, a significant indirect effect was predicted from masculine honor, through perceived invulnerability, to the risk-taking areas previously linked with masculine honor. The measure of perceived invulnerability included three subscales: general invulnerability (a general belief that one cannot be physically or psychologically harmed), danger invulnerability (a specific belief that one would not be personally harmed by engaging in risky behavior), and interpersonal invulnerability (the belief that one cannot be emotionally or psychologically hurt by the opinions of others). It was predicted that the general invulnerability and danger invulnerability subscales would explain the links between honor ideology and risk-taking. Interpersonal invulnerability was not expected to play a significant role because honor ideology is based on the idea that a person can indeed be harmed by the opinions of others, as reputation depends on how others view them.

Method

Study Participants and Process

The study included 220 college students (89 males, 131 females) from a large research university in the southern United States. Most identified as white (62.7%), with others identifying as Asian (10.9%), Latino/Hispanic (9.5%), African American (8.2%), Native American (3.6%), Middle Eastern (1.8%), or "Other" (3.2%). All participants provided informed consent before the study. Participants then completed a demographic questionnaire, followed by the honor measure, the other factors considered, the measure of perceived invulnerability, and the measures of risk-taking.

The study followed ethical guidelines. All participants completed attention checks, and no data were removed. A power analysis confirmed that the sample size of 220 was sufficient to detect important effects.

Measuring Honor

Earlier research on honor ideology and risk-taking focused on the masculine aspects of honor. While masculine honor norms typically apply to men, research indicates that women's beliefs about honor can also be influenced by these masculine standards. Masculine honor ideology was measured using a 16-item scale. This scale asks participants to rate their agreement with statements about how an "honorable" man should act, including concerns about reputation (e.g., "A real man is seen as tough in the eyes of his peers") and using retaliation for threats (e.g., "A man has the right to act with physical aggression toward another man who calls him an insulting name"). Responses were given on a 7-point scale, where higher scores indicated stronger agreement with masculine honor norms. The final score was the average response across all 16 items.

Measuring Risk-Taking

The Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale (DOSPERT) was used to measure risk-taking. This scale has 40 items covering risky behaviors in various areas. Participants rated how likely they would be to engage in specific actions on a 5-point scale. The scale has five sections: ethical behavior (e.g., "Not returning a wallet found with $200"), financial behavior (e.g., "Investing 5% of annual income in a risky stock"), health/safety behavior (e.g., "Riding a motorcycle without a helmet"), recreational behavior (e.g., "Bungee jumping off a tall bridge"), and social behavior (e.g., "Moving far from family"). Higher scores on each section indicated a greater willingness to take risks in that area, and the final score for each section was its average.

Measuring Perceived Invulnerability

Perceived invulnerability was measured using a 21-item scale. Although initially created for teenagers, this scale is also used with college students. Responses were given on a 5-point scale. The scale has three subscales: general invulnerability (a belief in not being easily harmed, physically or mentally; e.g., "Unlikely to be injured in an accident"), danger invulnerability (a specific belief that risky actions will not lead to physical harm; e.g., "Safety rules do not apply"), and interpersonal invulnerability (a belief that others' opinions cannot cause emotional harm; e.g., "What people say about me has no effect"). Higher scores on each subscale reflected a stronger sense of invulnerability, and the final score was the average of the items.

Other Factors Considered

To ensure an accurate understanding of the honor-risk connection, other factors were taken into account. These included participant gender, scores on extraversion and agreeableness from a personality inventory, and self-esteem scores. These controls were included to align with previous research and to manage known links between these factors (being male, higher extraversion/agreeableness, lower self-esteem) and a greater tendency to engage in risky behaviors.

Results

All study materials and data are publicly available online. The honor measure (HIM) was significantly linked to higher scores in general invulnerability, danger invulnerability, and interpersonal invulnerability. The HIM also showed a connection to higher health/safety risk-taking and ethical risk-taking. Interestingly, the HIM was associated with lower social risk-taking and financial risk-taking.

To see if perceptions of invulnerability helped explain the links between honor and risk-taking, and to identify which specific type of invulnerability played a role, mediation analyses were conducted. These analyses examined how general invulnerability, danger invulnerability, and interpersonal invulnerability influenced the relationship between the honor measure and both health/safety and ethical risk-taking. All analyses took into account gender, extraversion, agreeableness, and self-esteem.

Health and Safety Risk

For health and safety risk-taking, results showed that the honor measure had an indirect effect through both general invulnerability and danger invulnerability. This suggests that these types of invulnerability help explain why honor is linked to health and safety risk-taking. However, interpersonal invulnerability did not show a similar indirect effect.

Ethical Risk

Regarding ethical risk-taking, a significant indirect effect was found from the honor measure through general invulnerability. This indicates that general invulnerability helps explain the connection between honor and ethical risk. No significant indirect effects were found through danger invulnerability or interpersonal invulnerability for ethical risk.

Other Risk Types Analyzed

Even though the honor measure did not show a direct link to recreational risk-taking, and had opposite effects for social and financial risk, further analyses were conducted. This was done because indirect connections can still exist even without a direct overall effect. No significant indirect effects were found for social or financial risk. However, a significant indirect effect was found for recreational risk-taking through both general invulnerability and danger invulnerability, suggesting these types of invulnerability help explain the link to recreational risk.

Discussion

This study aimed to clarify the connection between masculine honor beliefs and risk-taking by exploring how perceived invulnerability plays a role. The findings supported the idea that honor indirectly affects health/safety, ethical, and recreational risk-taking through perceived invulnerability. However, no significant direct or indirect relationship was found between masculine honor and financial or social risks.

These results align with existing research on masculine honor norms. Health and safety risks are likely very important culturally for those who endorse honor today. Taking such risks shows toughness and competence. This matches findings that honor endorsers may avoid protective measures they believe would harm their reputation, whether for physical safety, mental health, or general health. Recreational risks also seem to signal toughness and competence. The link between honor and ethical risk-taking suggests that honor endorsers may prioritize vengeance over fairness when protecting their reputations.

The absence of significant effects for financial and social risks also fits with honor culture. Financial risks could threaten one's ability to support and protect family, which goes against honor as a survival strategy. Such risks may not convey toughness in the same way safety or recreational risks do. Social risks also conflict with honor norms because unpopular actions could lower one's social status, making them more vulnerable to insults or mistreatment.

The findings also revealed a connection between masculine honor beliefs and interpersonal invulnerability, even though interpersonal invulnerability did not explain the observed risk outcomes. This was an unexpected finding, as it was thought that honor, being dependent on others' opinions, would mean honor endorsers would not feel immune to interpersonal threats. The modest positive link found suggests that honor-oriented individuals might see their reputation as unshakeable, or themselves as fully capable of defending it, thus feeling immune to interpersonal harm. Another possibility is that honor endorsers are hesitant to admit interpersonal vulnerability, as this could be seen as a sign of weakness. Future research could explore this link further, especially considering how honor relates to social risks like relational aggression.

Overall, these findings have important implications for policies and educational programs aimed at reducing risk-taking. Past research suggests that making the potential consequences of risky behaviors clear and relevant can help reduce perceived invulnerability and, in turn, risky actions. Similarly, studies on honor ideology indicate that specific educational efforts can encourage individuals to rethink core aspects of their honor beliefs. Creating and implementing such honor-focused educational programs is important for educators and policymakers, especially since the link between honor and risk has been connected to accidental deaths in honor cultures. It could also be helpful to address the cultural values that foster perceived invulnerability. For instance, explaining that avoiding mental or physical healthcare out of fear of appearing "weak" might actually make an individual less able to defend themselves. Future research should investigate how effective such interventions might be.

Limitations and Conclusion

This research has some limitations. The study participants were young college students from a large university in the southwestern United States. While this matches previous research, exploring these effects in older and more diverse age groups could help understand risk-taking in middle and later adulthood. This is particularly relevant because adherence to cultural norms tends to increase with age, while risk-taking often decreases. Also, because risk-taking was measured through self-reports, it would be beneficial to examine actual observed behaviors in future studies.

The study's findings also show relatively small effect sizes. This indicates that more research is needed, possibly using experimental or long-term studies to better establish cause-and-effect relationships. However, even small effects can be significant, especially when dealing with long-term cultural beliefs and values. Therefore, while these results should be considered carefully, they are still considered meaningful.

Despite these limitations, the current findings help clarify previous research by explaining the underlying process of honor's effects. These data, combined with earlier findings, further illuminate the cultural influence of honor on risk-taking.

Overall, this research is considered an important advancement in understanding both honor and risk-taking. By identifying honor as a factor that leads to perceived invulnerability, the study emphasizes the need to consider cultural concerns, values, and beliefs when examining the reasons and processes behind risk-taking.

A cultural idea known as honor ideology places great importance on how others view a person's reputation. This idea likely developed as a way to survive in places where resources were scarce and effective laws were lacking. In such environments, individuals tried to protect themselves from theft or attack by building a reputation as someone not to be challenged. Men who value honor often seek to be seen as strong, tough, capable, and unwilling to accept disrespect. Both men and women in these cultures believe reputation is central to their personal honor.

Much research has focused on how honor is connected to violent reactions when a person's reputation feels threatened. Studies show that people who strongly believe in honor are more likely to respond with violence in these situations. However, research has also linked honor to other negative outcomes beyond violence. These include a higher risk of suicide, a reluctance to seek help for mental health issues, problems with gun ownership and gun violence, and even a refusal to vaccinate children against certain diseases. Many of these findings suggest that people who uphold honor make decisions with a strong awareness of how those choices will affect their reputation in the eyes of others.

Crucially, research indicates that people who value honor are more likely to take risks. For example, states within the U.S. with a strong honor culture have shown higher rates of accidental deaths, possibly due to risky behaviors. At an individual level, concerns about masculine honor have been linked to a willingness to engage in risky actions across many areas of life. These results suggest that honor encourages its followers to take risks to gain and maintain a reputation for toughness, strength, and competence.

It has also been observed that men who value honor are more likely to seek out dangerous situations they believe will boost their reputation. They tend to see these situations as less dangerous and believe they are more likely to withstand prolonged risk in them. During the COVID-19 pandemic, honor was found to predict risky health behaviors, such as not wearing a mask, and negative attitudes toward safety measures like social distancing or business restrictions.

Risk is an inherent part of honor norms for both men and women. The study of honor culture in America first grew from examining higher homicide rates in the South, which often stemmed from interpersonal arguments. Later research clarified that men are expected to respond to threats to their reputation with violence, without considering the dangers involved in such confrontations. Beyond physical harm, honor-based revenge also poses a threat to personal and financial well-being, as it increases the risk of arrest and imprisonment. Similar inherent risks exist for women in cultures of honor. A woman's disloyalty, or even the perception of it, can be seen as a threat to her husband's or father's honor. This often leads men to "restore" their honor through violence against the woman, leading to clear increases in domestic abuse and violence against women in honor cultures. Despite these potential harms, women who endorse honor still uphold these norms, indicating a tolerance for personal risk. This suggests that honor may lead its followers to develop certain ways of thinking that make dangerous, reputation-boosting behaviors seem less risky. One such way of thinking might be "perceived invulnerability."

Perceived Invulnerability

Perceived invulnerability is a hopeful, self-serving way of thinking that plays a consistent role in risk-taking behaviors throughout life. People who see themselves as invulnerable are less likely to consider the dangers in a situation. This makes them more prone to violent or aggressive responses and other potentially dangerous behaviors, including drinking and driving, smoking and drug use, and unsafe sexual practices. The risky behavior of peers and what one believes peers expect are known factors that contribute to perceived invulnerability and subsequent risk-taking. Individuals, especially adolescents, look to their peers for guidance and adopt norms and values about being safe from the negative outcomes of risk-taking. Therefore, in a social setting where risky behaviors are tolerated, encouraged, or rewarded, individuals are more likely to develop a sense of invulnerability. This study proposes that this is true in cultures of honor.

Honor Ideology and Invulnerability

As a cultural framework, honor ideology includes norms, values, and behavioral scripts that shape how its followers make decisions. Certain aspects of honor are naturally linked to risk, particularly its development in dangerous environments, its encouragement of risky behaviors to violently defend reputation "at all costs," and its high regard for reputations of strength, toughness, and competence. People who endorse honor are therefore likely to expect risk as a part of their daily lives. While it is possible that these individuals fully understand and tolerate this risk, research suggests that people who feel personally vulnerable to risk are less likely to engage in risky behavior. This contradicts findings that honor endorsers are more likely to take risks. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that honor endorsers understand that risk-taking is often necessary to gain and keep their reputations, and thus they develop a sense of invulnerability to enable such behaviors.

It follows that the previously identified link between honor and risk-taking across various areas would be explained by perceived invulnerability. Researchers specifically predicted a significant indirect effect from masculine honor, through perceived invulnerability, to the risk-taking areas that had previously been linked with masculine honor. The measure of perceived invulnerability included three subscales: general invulnerability (a general disbelief in being harmed physically or psychologically), danger invulnerability (a specific disbelief in being harmed by risky behavior), and interpersonal invulnerability (the belief that one cannot be emotionally or psychologically hurt by others' opinions). The prediction was that the general invulnerability and danger invulnerability subscales would explain the links between honor ideology and risk-taking. Interpersonal invulnerability was not expected to play a significant role because honor ideology relies on the idea that one can be harmed by the opinions of others, as reputation depends on how others view a person.

Study Method

Participants were 220 college students from a large research institution in the southern United States. Most participants identified as white, non-Latino/a. All participants gave their informed consent before taking part in the study. They then completed a demographic questionnaire, followed by measures of honor, control variables, perceived invulnerability, and risk-taking. The study followed ethical standards, and all participant data was included in the analysis after passing attention checks. A power analysis confirmed that the sample size was sufficient for detecting moderate indirect effects.

The study used several scales to measure key concepts. Masculine honor ideology was measured using the Honor Ideology for Manhood scale (HIM), which includes 16 items reflecting beliefs about how an "honorable" man should behave, such as concerns about reputation and the use of physical aggression to respond to threats. Risk-taking was assessed with the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale (DOSPERT), which covers 40 risky behaviors across five areas: ethical, financial, health/safety, recreational, and social behaviors. Perceived invulnerability was measured using the Adolescent Invulnerability Scale (AIS), which has 21 items divided into three subscales: general invulnerability (belief in one's inability to be injured), danger invulnerability (disbelief in physical harm from risky behavior), and interpersonal invulnerability (belief that others' opinions cannot hurt oneself). Finally, participant gender, extraversion, agreeableness, and self-esteem were included as control variables to account for other factors known to influence risk-taking behaviors.

Study Results

All study materials and data are publicly available. Initial analysis showed that scores on the masculine honor ideology scale were significantly linked to higher scores on general invulnerability, danger invulnerability, and interpersonal invulnerability. Masculine honor was also associated with higher health/safety risk-taking and ethical risk-taking scores. Interestingly, it was linked to lower social risk-taking and financial risk-taking scores.

To investigate if perceptions of vulnerability explained the links between honor and risk-taking, mediation analyses were conducted for health/safety and ethical risk-taking. These analyses tested each invulnerability subscale separately, while controlling for gender, extraversion, agreeableness, and self-esteem.

For health/safety risk-taking, results showed a significant indirect effect from masculine honor through both the general invulnerability and danger invulnerability subscales. This means that honor likely influenced health/safety risk-taking by increasing a general feeling of invulnerability or a specific belief that one would not be harmed by risky behavior. No significant indirect effect was found through interpersonal invulnerability for health/safety risks.

For ethical risk-taking, a significant indirect effect was found from masculine honor through the general invulnerability subscale. This suggests that honor influenced ethical risk-taking by increasing a general feeling of being unharmed. However, no significant indirect effect was observed through danger invulnerability or interpersonal invulnerability for ethical risks.

Even though masculine honor had no significant overall effect on recreational risk-taking, and negative effects on social and financial risks, additional mediation analyses were performed. It was found that a significant indirect effect existed for recreational risk-taking through both the general invulnerability and danger invulnerability subscales. This suggests that honor did influence recreational risk-taking via these types of invulnerability, even if the total effect was not significant. No significant indirect effects were found for social or financial risk-taking through any invulnerability subscale.

Discussion

This study aimed to better understand the connection between masculine honor and risk-taking by examining the role of perceived invulnerability. The results supported this idea, showing that honor indirectly influenced health/safety, ethical, and recreational risk-taking through perceived invulnerability. However, no significant relationship, direct or indirect, was found between masculine honor and financial or social risks.

These findings align with what is known about masculine honor norms. Health and safety risks are likely very important culturally for honor endorsers today. Taking such risks communicates toughness and competence, which explains why honor endorsers might refuse protective measures they feel would compromise such a reputation, whether in personal aggression, mental health, or health prevention. Recreational risks similarly signal toughness and competence. The link between honor and ethical risk-taking is consistent with the idea that honor endorsers prioritize revenge over "fighting fair" when defending their reputations.

The lack of significant effects for financial and social risks also makes sense within the context of honor. Financial risks could threaten an individual's ability to provide for and protect their family, which goes against honor's role as a survival strategy. Therefore, these risks may not convey toughness in the same way safety or recreational risks do. Social risks also conflict with honor norms, as actions that make someone unpopular could decrease their social standing in an honor culture, making them an easier target for insults.

The study also found a relationship between masculine honor endorsement and interpersonal invulnerability, although this did not explain any of the observed risk outcomes. This finding was unexpected, as it was assumed that honor endorsers, whose reputation depends on others' opinions, would not see themselves as invulnerable to interpersonal threats. However, a modest positive link was found. This might indicate that honor-oriented individuals, while needing to be watchful for reputation threats, must also view their reputation as unassailable or at least believe they are fully capable of defending it, thus feeling invulnerable to interpersonal threats. Another possibility is that honor endorsers might simply be reluctant to admit feeling interpersonal vulnerability, as this could be seen as a sign of weakness. Future research could explore this link and its potential effects on social risks like relational aggression, and also investigate how honor influences perceptions of how socially desirable risk-taking behaviors are.

Overall, the results have important implications for policies and educational efforts aimed at reducing risk-taking behaviors. Previous research suggests that making the potential consequences of risky behavior clear and relevant can help to break illusions of invulnerability and decrease such behavior. Studies on honor ideology have also indicated that targeted educational interventions can help individuals reconsider and even change their views on fundamental aspects of honor. Creating and implementing honor-focused educational interventions should be a priority for educators and policymakers, especially since the link between honor and risk has been connected to accidental death rates in honor cultures. It could also be beneficial to address the cultural concerns and values that lead to perceptions of invulnerability in the first place. For example, suggesting that failing to seek mental or physical healthcare out of fear of appearing "weak" might actually lead to being weaker and unable to defend oneself. Future research should examine how effective such interventions might be.

Limitations and Conclusion

This research has a few limitations. First, the participants were young college students from a single university in the southwestern U.S. While similar to populations in prior research, studying more diverse age groups could help understand risk-taking in older adults, especially since adherence to cultural norms tends to increase with age, while risk-taking typically decreases. Given that the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale relies on self-reported behaviors, it would be valuable to examine actual behavioral outcomes in future studies.

It should also be noted that the study's results showed small effect sizes, suggesting that much more work is needed in this area, perhaps through experimental or long-term studies to establish cause-and-effect relationships more clearly. However, even small effect sizes can be meaningful, particularly for long-term cultural influences like norms and values. Thus, while these results should be considered carefully, they are believed to be significant.

Despite these limitations, the current findings help to clarify previous self-report data by explaining the mechanism behind those effects. These data, combined with earlier findings, further illuminate the cultural impact of honor on risk-taking. Overall, this research represents an important step forward in understanding both honor and risk-taking behaviors. By identifying honor as a factor leading to perceived invulnerability, the study emphasizes the importance of considering cultural concerns, values, and beliefs when trying to understand the reasons and processes behind risk-taking behavior.

Honor, Feeling Untouchable, and Taking Risks

A person's good name is very important in cultures where honor is a central idea. This way of thinking often starts in places where there are not enough resources and laws are weak. In such places, people act tough so others will not bother them or steal from them.

Men who value honor want to be seen as strong, tough, and not willing to accept disrespect. Women also see their good name as key to their personal honor.

Much research shows that honor is linked to fighting back with violence when a person feels their good name has been threatened. But honor is also connected to other problems. These include a higher risk of suicide, not seeking help for mental health issues, problems with gun use and violence, and refusing to vaccinate children for certain illnesses. These choices are often made because people are very aware of how they will look to others.

A main finding is that people who strongly believe in honor are more likely to take risks. For example, studies found that states in the U.S. with more honor concerns had more accidental deaths, likely from risky behaviors. People who value honor may be more willing to do dangerous things and might see such situations as less risky. During the COVID-19 pandemic, honor was linked to not wearing a mask and negative feelings about rules like social distancing.

Taking risks is a basic part of honor rules for both men and women. Men are expected to fight back against threats to their good name, even if it means danger. This can lead to physical harm, arrest, or money problems. Women in honor cultures also face risks, like violence from family if their loyalty is questioned. Yet, they often still support these rules.

Perceived Invulnerability

Perceived invulnerability means a person believes they cannot be easily hurt, either physically or mentally. This belief often plays a part in taking risks throughout a person's life. People who feel this way may not think much about the dangers of a situation. This can lead to aggressive actions, drinking and driving, smoking, drug use, and risky sexual behavior.

How friends and society act can lead to this feeling of being untouchable. If risky behaviors are common or even rewarded, people are more likely to feel like they cannot be harmed. The study suggests this is often the case in cultures where honor is very important.

Honor Ideology as an Antecedent of Invulnerability

Honor culture has rules and beliefs that guide how people make decisions. It comes from dangerous settings and pushes people to protect their good name at any cost, showing strength and toughness. So, people who follow honor rules likely expect risk in their daily lives. Research shows that people who feel they can be hurt are less likely to take risks. This means people focused on honor might start to believe they are untouchable, which helps them take risks.

Researchers believed that the link between honor and taking risks is due to this feeling of being untouchable. They looked at two types of this feeling: thinking one generally cannot be harmed, and thinking one cannot be harmed by risky actions. They did not expect that feeling like one cannot be hurt by other people's opinions would explain the link, because a person's honor is based on what others think.

Method

The study included 220 college students from a university in the southern United States. Most students were white, with others identifying as Asian, Latino/Hispanic, African American, Native American, or Middle Eastern. All students agreed to take part and filled out forms about themselves, their honor beliefs, their feelings of being untouchable, and their willingness to take risks. The study followed ethical rules, and the number of students was large enough for good results.

To measure honor, a 16-item scale was used to understand beliefs about how an "honorable" man should act. This included ideas about being seen as tough and using force if disrespected. Higher scores showed a stronger belief in these honor rules.

Risk-taking was measured using 40 items about risky actions in different areas, such as ethical choices, money matters, health and safety, fun activities, and social situations. Higher scores meant a greater chance of taking risks.

Perceived invulnerability was measured using 21 items. This scale looked at three types of feeling untouchable: a general belief of not being hurt, a belief of not being harmed by risky actions, and a belief that others' opinions cannot hurt. Higher scores meant a stronger feeling of being untouchable.

Other factors were also considered, such as gender, certain personality traits (like being outgoing or friendly), and how good a person felt about themselves. This was to make sure these factors did not explain the results instead of honor.

Results

The study found that believing in honor was connected to a stronger feeling of being untouchable, in both general ways and when facing danger, and also against others' opinions. Honor was linked to taking more risks related to health and safety, and ethical choices. But, interestingly, honor was linked to taking fewer risks in social and money situations.

Researchers used special tests to see if the feeling of being untouchable helped explain why honor was linked to certain risks.

For risks related to health and safety, the study found that general feelings of being untouchable and feelings of being safe from danger helped explain the link with honor. However, the idea that others' opinions could not hurt did not explain this link.

For ethical risks, a general feeling of being untouchable explained the link with honor. But the other types of feeling untouchable (safe from danger or from others' opinions) did not explain it.

The study also looked at other types of risks. Even though honor did not directly link to recreational (fun) risks, the feeling of being untouchable (both general and from danger) still helped explain why people took these kinds of risks. Honor was not linked to social or money risks in this way.

Discussion

This study aimed to better understand how believing in honor leads to taking risks, by looking at the role of feeling untouchable. The results supported this idea: honor was linked to health and safety, ethical, and recreational risks because people felt untouchable. However, honor was not clearly linked to financial or social risks.

These findings make sense with what is known about honor. Risks to health and safety show toughness, which is important for honor. People who value honor often avoid safety measures if it makes them seem weak. Fun risks also show toughness. The link between honor and ethical risks suggests that people with honor concerns care more about getting back at someone than about playing fair.

The lack of a link for financial and social risks also fits with honor ideas. Taking money risks could hurt a person's ability to care for their family, which goes against honor's goal of survival. Social risks, like being unpopular, could also lower a person's standing in an honor culture, making them an easier target.

The study also found a link between honor and feeling untouchable by others' opinions, which was a surprise. Researchers thought that because honor depends on what others think, people would not feel untouchable in this way. One idea is that honor-focused men might feel their good name is so strong it cannot be hurt, or that they can always defend it. Another idea is that they might not want to admit they feel vulnerable to others' opinions, as it could seem like a weakness. More study is needed here.

Overall, these results have important lessons for groups working to stop risky behaviors. Making the bad results of risky actions clear can help reduce feelings of being untouchable. Also, teaching people to think differently about honor ideas can help them change their minds. For example, not getting health help because of fear of looking "weak" might actually make someone weaker. Such education could help lower accidental deaths linked to honor and risk-taking.

Limitations and Conclusion

This study had a few limits. First, it only included young college students from one region. Looking at older groups could help understand risk-taking at different ages. Also, the study asked people to report their own risks, so it might be good to look at actual actions in the future.

The study's results showed small effects. This means more research is needed, perhaps using different methods to show cause and effect more clearly. However, even small effects can be important over time, especially for cultural ideas like honor.

Despite these limits, the findings help explain why honor is linked to risk-taking. This study, along with past research, helps make clear how honor affects people's choices to take risks. It shows that when trying to understand why people take risks, it is important to think about their culture, values, and beliefs.