Dov Cohen

Introduction

Dov Cohen is an American cultural psychologist and a faculty member in the Department of Psychology at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He is best known for Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South, written with Richard E. Nisbett and published in 1996, and for the laboratory experiments that accompanied it — a body of work that made "culture of honor" a standard term in cultural psychology and made the American South a standard case study in how regional culture shapes aggression.

Cohen's central claim is that the South's elevated rate of argument-related homicide is not an artefact of poverty, heat, or the legacy of slavery, but reflects a coherent set of beliefs about reputation: that a man's standing must be defended, that insults cannot be allowed to pass, and that a reputation for toughness deters predation. His later work has broadened this into a comparative framework distinguishing cultures of honor from cultures of dignity and cultures of face, and has shifted emphasis toward variation within cultures rather than between them.

Early Life and Education

Cohen received his doctorate in psychology from the University of Michigan, arriving at the point when the university's culture and cognition programme was coalescing around Nisbett. His training combined the experimental rigour of Michigan social psychology with an interest in anthropology and in the historical settlement patterns that left different regional populations with different institutional inheritances — an unusual combination, and the one that made the culture of honor project possible.

Academic and Professional Career

After Michigan, Cohen taught at the University of Waterloo in Ontario before moving to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where he has spent the bulk of his career and where he held the rank of assistant professor at the time Culture of Honor was published.

Alongside his own research he has been an editor and institution-builder in cultural psychology. He co-edited Culture and Social Behavior with Richard Sorrentino, James Olson, and Mark Zanna, and later co-edited the Handbook of Cultural Psychology with Shinobu Kitayama — the second edition of which, published in 2019, is the reference volume of the field. His own research interests are stated in terms of cultural continuity and change, within-culture variability, and the way people position themselves with respect to dominant cultural ideals, a formulation that reflects a shift away from treating cultures as uniform blocks.

Major Contributions to Psychology

The culture of honor thesis

Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South assembled several kinds of evidence. Analyse homicide statistics and a distinctive pattern appears: the South's elevated homicide rate is concentrated in argument-related killings among acquaintances, not in felony-related killings involving strangers; it appears in small towns and rural counties rather than in large cities; and it appears among whites rather than among Black Americans. Nisbett and Cohen read this as a signature. Whatever was driving Southern violence, it operated specifically where reputation is at stake.

They then showed that the pattern extended to attitudes. Southerners were not more violent in the abstract — they were no more likely than Northerners to endorse police beating suspects — but they were markedly more likely to endorse violence in defence of home, family, and reputation. In one survey, 36 percent of Southerners said a man could kill to defend his home, against 18 percent of Northerners.

Their historical explanation was that the South was settled disproportionately by herders from the Scottish and Irish borderlands, in a pattern reinforced earlier by English cavaliers. Herding economies, the argument runs, are uniquely vulnerable to theft: a flock can be wiped out overnight. Where the state cannot protect property, cultivating a reputation for violent retaliation is a rational deterrent, and the norms that support it become part of what it means to be a man.

The insult experiments

The best-known piece of evidence is Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, and Schwarz's 1996 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology paper, subtitled An experimental ethnography. In it, a confederate bumped into participants in a narrow hallway and muttered "asshole." Southern participants responded differently from Northerners on nearly every measure: their cortisol and testosterone rose more, they were rated by observers as angrier and less amused, they gave firmer handshakes to a subsequent confederate, and in a reaction-time game they were more likely to interpret an ambiguous approach as a challenge and to respond aggressively.

The study's value was that it moved the argument from aggregate statistics to individual behaviour under controlled conditions, and that it measured physiology as well as self-report. It remains one of the few cases in which a macro-level pattern in crime statistics was joined to a laboratory demonstration of the mechanism proposed to explain it.

Honor, dignity, and face

Cohen's later work, much of it with Kwok Leung, reframed honor as one of three cultural logics. In cultures of honor, worth must be claimed and defended. In cultures of dignity, worth is intrinsic and does not require defence — insulting behaviour reflects badly on the insulter, not the insulted. In cultures of face, worth depends on meeting social obligations and maintaining harmonious standing within a hierarchy. The framework gave researchers a way to talk about variation without reducing everything to the individualism–collectivism axis.

Within-culture variation and the self

Cohen has also worked on how people position themselves relative to their culture's dominant ideals. With Angela Gunz he published a 2002 Psychological Science study showing that Easterners and Westerners recall emotional episodes from different visual perspectives: Westerners tend to see themselves from their own eyes, as an actor looking out, whereas Easterners more often see themselves from outside, as an observer would. The finding connected the independent and interdependent self-construal literature to autobiographical memory in a way that was simple to demonstrate and difficult to explain away.

Major Publications

Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South. Westview Press.
Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An experimental ethnography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 945–960.
Cohen, D., & Gunz, A. (2002). As seen by the other: Perspectives on the self in the memories and emotional perceptions of Easterners and Westerners. Psychological Science, 13(1), 55–59.
Leung, A. K.-y., & Cohen, D. (2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity. In A. Todorov, S. T. Fiske, & D. Prentice (Eds.), Social Neuroscience: Toward Understanding the Underpinnings of the Social Mind. Oxford University Press.
Cohen, D., & Kitayama, S. (Eds.) (2019). Handbook of Cultural Psychology (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Impact and Legacy

The culture of honor thesis is one of the more successful exports from social psychology to adjacent fields. Sociologists, criminologists, political scientists, and historians all now use the term, and the three-way honor–dignity–face scheme has been applied to international relations, organisational culture, and online behaviour. The 1996 book is also unusual in having made a genuinely interdisciplinary argument: it drew on homicide statistics, survey data, laboratory experiment, and settlement history in a single case.

It has also attracted sustained criticism, and the criticisms are worth stating plainly.

The most frequently raised objection concerns sampling. The insult experiments were run on students at the University of Michigan. James D. Wright, reviewing the book for Reason in 1997, pointed out the obvious problem: Southern men who travel north to a university like Michigan are highly self-selected, and there is no reason to think they are representative of small-town Southern men — the population the homicide data describes. Whether the self-selection makes the effect larger or smaller is genuinely unclear, which is precisely the difficulty.

A second objection is conceptual. Wright's central complaint was that the culture of honor explanation "restates but does not explain" the pattern: saying that Southerners defend their honor redescribes the fact that they respond violently to insults without saying where the disposition came from. The herding-origin story is an answer to that question, but it is a just-so story in the sense that matters — it is difficult to test, and the chain of cultural transmission from the Anglo-Scottish border to the twentieth-century American South is inferred rather than observed.

A third concerns the alternatives Nisbett and Cohen rejected. They argued against heat, poverty, and the legacy of slavery on the grounds that the coolest upland regions have the highest homicide rates, that non-slave regions show the pattern, and that the effect survives controls for poverty. Those are good arguments, but they are not the last word: the debate over the Southern homicide differential continues, and scholars working with different model specifications continue to find room for structural explanations involving gun availability, economic inequality, and the weakness of local institutions.

A fourth is about scope. The pattern the book identifies is concentrated among white men in small towns and rural areas. There is no comparable regional difference in Black homicide rates, and big-city rates are similar North and South. Any statement of the thesis that outruns those qualifiers is stronger than the evidence supports — and popular summaries of the work routinely do outrun them.

A fifth is about the inferential distance between the two halves of the argument. The homicide statistics are aggregate and historical; the experiments measure undergraduates' hormone levels and handshake firmness in a corridor. Connecting the two requires assuming that a laboratory measure of insult sensitivity indexes the same disposition that produces argument-related killings decades later and in a different population. That assumption is plausible and it is not demonstrated.

Finally, the experiments date from the mid-1990s, before current norms about sample size, pre-registration, and analytic flexibility took hold. The finding is widely treated as established; whether it would survive the standards now applied to findings of comparable prominence is not something anyone has established either way.

Cohen's own response to several of these criticisms has been constructive rather than defensive. His turn toward within-culture variation, and toward studying how individuals relate to their culture's ideals rather than assuming they embody them, is in part an acknowledgement that cultures are not the homogeneous units that early cross-cultural work assumed.

Learn More

References

Cohen, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1994). Self-protection and the culture of honor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 551-567.