Honor, face, and dignity norm endorsement among diverse North American adolescents: Development of a Social Norms Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examined the psychometric properties and validity of a new self-report instrument for assessing the social norms that coordinate social relations and define self-worth within three normative systems. A survey that assesses endorsement of honor, face, and dignity norms was evaluated in ethnically diverse adolescent samples in the U.S. (Study 1a) and Canada (Study 2). The internal structure of the survey was consistent with the conceptual framework, but only the honor and face scales were reliable. Honor endorsement was linked to self-reported retaliation, less conciliatory behavior, and high perceived threat. Face endorsement was related to anger suppression, more conciliatory behavior, and, in the U.S., low perceived threat. Study 1b examined identity-relevant emotions and appraisals experienced after retaliation and after calming a victimized peer. Honor norm endorsement predicted pride following revenge, while face endorsement predicted high shame. Adolescents who endorsed honor norms thought that only avenging their peer had been helpful and consistent with the role of good friend, while those who endorsed face norms thought only calming a victimized peer was helpful and indicative of a good friend. Implications for adolescent welfare are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".