461961 2012

16310.1177/1368430212461961Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsMandel and Litt

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations Article

The ultimate sacrifice: Perceived peer honor predicts troops’ willingness to risk their lives

G P I R

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(3) 375­–388 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1368430212461961 gpir.sagepub.com

David R. Mandel1 and Amrit Litt2

Abstract Honor is a central concept in the profession of arms. The present study of 2,254 Canadian Forces (CF) members examined how they viewed the honor of their peers at ranks below, at, or above their own. Although rank is itself a form of vertical honor, participants’ mean assessments of honor were inversely related to these relative-rank distinctions. As well, averaged across vertical honor, the assessed honor of other CF members directly predicted their willingness to risk their lives in combat operations. This effect was fully mediated by participants’ affective commitment to the CF and it was partially mediated by their sense of duty. The findings show that how professionals perceive the honor of their peers does not simply follow vertical indices of honor, and that those perceptions predict attitudinal states (e.g., affective commitment) and behavioral intentions (willingness to risk one’s life to perform one’s duties). Keywords honor, military, risk, affective commitment, duty Paper received 13 September 2011; revised version accepted 23 August 2012. Most professions are guided by a code of conduct that outlines the members’ obligations. Virtually all such codes include ethical standards that are meant to ensure the integrity of the professional body and to protect the stakeholders they serve. For example, doctors and other health care professionals follow a code of conduct based on the Hippocratic Oath, dating back to the late 5th century BCE, which stresses the professional’s obligation to promote well-being and not to inflict harm on a patient. Professional codes of conduct reflect the mutual understanding of members of a profession and of the greater society that professionals wield considerable power. If left unchecked by an appropriate set of ethical

standards, such power might easily be corrupted by self-interests. Most professional codes therefore emphasize the duty to honorably serve the greater good, and members are meant to internalize the ethical standards of the code even when they are not acting in a professional capacity.

1

DRDC Toronto, Canada University of Waterloo, Canada

2

Corresponding author: David R. Mandel, Socio-Cognitive Systems Section, DRDC Toronto, 1133 Sheppard Ave. W., PO Box 2000, Toronto, ON M3M 3B9, Canada. Email: [email protected]

376 Thus, a doctor who diligently heals patients by day, but then plots a murder on his personal time would certainly not be said to have adhered well to his code of conduct. No amount of professionalism exhibited during working hours could “cancel” the breach committed off hours because professionalism, by its very nature, is not a “switch-like” attribute that is permitted by the profession or the broader society to be simply turned on or off at will. Moreover, the doctor’s personal acts in the aforementioned example would tarnish the reputation—indeed, the honor—of his profession.

The Profession of Arms: Duty With Honor As the preceding example should serve to illustrate, the code of the profession is meant to become a part of its members’ social identity. In particular, living up to the moral and ethical precepts of such codes become an important part of the meaning that professionals assign to their lives and have assigned to them by others. Nowhere is the code of conduct of greater importance than in the profession of arms (Baker, 2011). This is partly because military members can be ordered to kill others under circumscribed conditions. And, it is partly because they accept “unlimited liability”—a euphemism conveying the fact that troops may be ordered to sacrifice their own lives in the course of performing their regular duties; or, to invoke a different euphemism, they may be obliged to make the “ultimate sacrifice.” It is widely recognized that the concept of honor plays an important role in promoting adherence to codes of conduct in the profession of arms (e.g., Chief of Defence Staff, 2003; Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate, 2005; French, 2005). Honor as a reputational quality is formally marked in many ways within the military. For instance, a “vertical” sense of honor (Stewart, 1994) is conferred through a military member’s rank as well as by the terms with which a subordinate is expected to address a superior (e.g., “Sir”). Honorific distinctions are also bestowed through medals for acts of courage, valor, and achievement (among other admirable qualities)

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(3) and through a host of other symbolic means. The sense of honor as an earned reputation to which one is deserving is believed to play a vital role in motivating military professionals not only to adhere to, but to excel in the application of, their code of conduct (e.g., Olsthoorn, 2005). Vertical manifestations of honor such as rank, of course, have a real effect on the power, entitlements, and responsibilities of military members. But reputational considerations of honor also reflect the importance that people place on how they are or might be judged by others, especially their peers who share a common ethos (see, e.g., Miller, 1993; Pitt-Rivers, 1965; Stewart, 1994). Put differently, people’s perceptions of how their peers view them, in turn, affect how they come to view themselves, and this process seems to be integrally associated with what we call “honor.” The psychological literature on honor has paid much attention to how the importance and meaning of honor varies cross-culturally, and on how such cross-cultural differences manifest in varying emotional and behavioral reactions to reputational challenges to one’s honor (e.g., IJzerman, van Dijk, & Gallucci, 2007; Leung & Cohen, 2011). For instance, Nisbett, Cohen, and their colleagues (e.g., D. Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwarz, 1996; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996; Vandello, Cohen, & Ransom, 2008) have argued that U.S. southerners are more likely than northerners to interpret even slight affronts to their reputation as legitimate cause for retribution-based aggression aimed at restoring honor. Likewise, other researchers have documented differences in the perception of honor between Mediterranean and Northern European countries, such as the greater emphasis on family honor in Mediterranean cultures (e.g., Rodriguez Mosquera, Manstead, & Fischer, 2002), and in other comparisons between cultural groups that vary in the degree to which they are honor-focused (e.g., IJzerman & Cohen, 2011; Uskul, Cross, Sunbay, Gercek-Swing, & Ataca, in press; Vandello & Cohen, 2003). There is, however, a paucity of psychological literature on the role of honor in professional cultures—even those in which the concept of honor is known to play a prominent role, such as

Mandel and Litt the profession of arms. As noted, the military encodes honorific distinctions among its members in a variety of externally verifiable ways. Indeed, a member’s uniform communicates to others his or her rank and honorific accomplishments. These external signs serve to make each member’s vertical honor, as one aspect of his or her reputational honor, explicit among the corps. However, the importance of honor in the military also reflects a directly internalized sense of moral and ethical integrity. According to Barrett and Sarbin (2008), the importance of this sense of honor as virtue has become increasingly important to military members, paralleling a broader societal shift in the concept within Western cultures from premodern to modern times. For instance, Barrett and Sarbin (2008) describe an earlier unpublished study of theirs in which they asked 45 naval officers to write a synopsis of an incident they experienced or observed where they saw honor operating. They noted that none of the officers described a case that involved upholding the actor’s status or reputation. Rather, most of the officers recounted a case in which the actor “did the right thing” under conditions in which it would have been easier to choose otherwise. In most of these cases, the ability to demonstrate honor was brought about by a moral and ethical decision-making challenge that the officer faced. One of the options (namely, the “hard” choice) was congruent with the officer’s ethical stance but would have involved self-sacrifice or personal risk, while the other option (namely, the “easy” choice) would have avoided the selfsacrifice or risk, but would also have betrayed the officer’s ethical sensibilities. Acting honorably, then, involved making the hard (and right) choice and avoiding “the easy way out” of a moral dilemma. This suggests that a more complete understanding of the importance of honor in social contexts will require research on honor-bound cultures, such as the profession of arms, where virtue maintenance rather than reputation maintenance would seem to be paramount. In cases where honor as virtue is at stake, military professionals may indeed be willing to make self-initiated, painful sacrifices to their vertical

377 honor as part of a conservational or restorative process. For example, Thompson, Thomson, and Adams (2008) cited a case in which a Canadian Forces (CF) commanding Army officer who was asked to recount a moral or ethical dilemma he had faced in his career subsequently described how he felt he had failed to mitigate unnecessary harm to his troops. The officer subsequently decided to resign from the Army, thus forfeiting his vertical honor, even though he was under no external pressure to do so. Likewise, Gal (1985) describes the case of an Israeli Defense Forces colonel who resigned from the military because he objected to the moral integrity of the mission he was charged with commanding. In a similar vein, Barrett and Sarbin (2008) discussed the sacrifice of vertical honor that French Army Lieutenant-Colonel Georges Picquart made in order to vindicate Albert Dreyfus, the French Army captain charged with treason in October 1894 and sentenced to life in prison. Picquart discovered that Dreyfus was innocent, but his superiors did not want to reopen the case, believing the error would cause further embarrassment to the Army. They assigned Picquart to a remote Tunisian outpost in an attempt to silence him. However, after an incident in which Picquart nearly lost his life, he swore he would not go to his grave without disclosing Dreyfus’s innocence, and he returned to Paris where he faced a prison sentence and a dishonorable discharge from the Army. Thus, in spite of the importance of his military career to his identity, he could not betray his moral values, which included letting the truth be known even if it meant an ostensibly dishonorable end to his career. (Picquart’s actions did in fact play an instrumental role in bringing about Dreyfus’s eventual exoneration.)

The Present Research In the present research, we examined how CF military personnel viewed the honorability of other members of their profession of arms. We stratified their assessments of their peers’ honor in terms of a vertical honor spectrum, such that they were asked to assess the same set

378 of honor-relevant attributes for (a) their subordinates (namely, members of lower military rank), (b) their peers, (c) leaders of higher rank than themselves within their unit’s chain of command, and (d) military leaders above their unit’s chain of command. The attributes we had participants rate were ones that define core military values in the CF, and which are doctrinally said to determine the extent to which a member performs his or her duties with honor (Chief of Defence Staff, 2003). These core military values include duty, loyalty, integrity, and courage, to which we also added a core Canadian value of ensuring that all people are treated with dignity, which is also discussed in CF’s code of conduct (for discussions of the relation between honor and dignity, see also IJzerman & Cohen, 2011; Leung & Cohen, 2011). One objective of ours was to document how the perceived honor of others within the same profession might vary as a function of the target of evaluation’s placement on the vertical honor continuum. Would participants’ average assessments of their peers’ honor be largely determined by their peers’ placement on the vertical honor continuum? That is, would assessed honor increase monotonically from assessments of subordinates to assessments of high-level leaders? If military members regard vertical honor (as designated by rank) as a reliable cue to the honor-bestowing qualities of their target of evaluation, then assessed honor would be expected to increase as a linear function of vertical honor. Alternatively, participants’ peer assessments might be based largely on episodic evidence they were able to recruit at the time of judgment. If so, assessments would depend mainly on the degree to which that evidence provided support for or against the presence of the relevant quality in the target of evaluation. In that case, one might expect assessments of honor to be independent of vertical honor. Finally, effects of vertical honor on assessed honor might be moderated by the participant’s own rank. For instance, lower ranking military members might be more inclined than higher ranking members to perceive the honor of subordinates as relatively high based on

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(3) their proximity to, or class inclusion in, that group. We tested these alternative hypotheses in the present research. A second objective of ours was to examine how participants’ assessments of their peers’ honor might predict their own willingness to risk their lives in performing their military duties. Specifically, would participants who had relatively more favorable views of their peers’ honor have been more willing to display their own honor through a commitment to make the ultimate sacrifice, if it were needed in order to perform their duties? We also sought to examine how this putative predictive effect might be moderated by vertical honor. For instance, previous research has shown that ethical leadership can have salutary effects on subordinates’ performance, satisfaction, and affective commitment to an organization or profession (e.g., Brown & Treviño, 2006; Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts, & Chonko, 2009), in part by establishing an ethical climate (Cullen, Parboteeah, & Victor, 2003; Schminke, Ambrose, & Neubaum, 2005). In a military context, Vaughan and Schum (2001) found that leadership was also one of the more frequently mentioned factors that motivated U.S. ground troops to fight during the Vietnam War. Thus, one plausible hypothesis is that participants’ willingness to risk their lives will be predicted by their perceptions of the honorability of leaders only, and perhaps especially the perceived honor of proximal leaders (namely, those in their unit). We offer that qualification because evidence from an interview study of ethical role modeling (Weaver, Treviño, & Agle, 2005) suggests that employees are inspired mainly by the ethical leadership of managers with whom they worked closely rather than distant higher level executives. That proximal unit leaders might have more influence also than higher level, but more distal, leaders on willingness to risk one’s life in the course of duty is also suggested by another of Vaughan and Schum’s (2001) findings; namely, that commitment to one’s primary military group was another frequently mentioned motivational factor for fighting during the Vietnam War (see also Stouffer et al., 1949).

Mandel and Litt Finally, anticipating that participants’ peer assessments of honor would predict their willingness to accept unlimited liability, we also sought to explore two possible mediators of that putative effect. In particular, we measured participants’ affective commitment to the CF as well as their personal sense of duty to Canada as two possible mediators. Affective commitment refers to an employee’s or professional member’s identification with, or attachment to, and involvement in, the organization or profession to which they belong (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). It is distinguished from continuance commitment, which refers to the perceived costs associated with leaving one’s organization or profession. Thus, whereas affective commitment is based on wanting to be a part of an organization, continuance commitment is based on needing to be a part of it. And, whereas affective commitment correlates positively with job performance, continuance commitment correlates negatively (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989). In the present research, we tested the hypothesis that affective commitment, but not continuance commitment would mediate the putative predictive effect of perceived peer honor on willingness to risk one’s life. Likewise, we tested the hypothesis that participants’ assessments of their peers’ honor might be positively related to their own sense of duty to their country, and that the sense of duty might also mediate the aforementioned putative relation between honor and willingness to risk one’s life. As noted earlier, our indicators of honor are those that the CF has promulgated as being essential to performing one’s duties with honor. We anticipate that one’s own sense of duty may be influenced by the extent to which they regard their peers as having pursued their duties with honor.

Method Overview The present study was part of a larger research project that examined the organizational culture and climate of the Canadian Army. A subset of

379 results has already been published (Bradley & Charbonneau, 2004; Capstick, Farley, Wild, & Parkes, 2005). However, the current study addressed questions not examined previously.

Participants A large sample (N = 2,254) of CF personnel participated in a survey study in response to a CF base-wide invitation. Among the vast majority of participants who were willing to provide demographic information, 85.85% were male, 88.89% were members of the Regular (as opposed to Reserve) force, 24.66% were members of the Infantry as opposed to other military occupational careers, and 92.63% were members of the Army (6.10% and 1.27% were members of the Air Force and Navy, respectively). Although the survey was oriented towards Army personnel, we did not exclude other CF personnel who volunteered to complete it. The mean age of participants was 33.82 years (MDN = 34, SD = 8.13) and they had a mean of 13.12 years of service (MDN = 13, SD = 8.28). The distribution of participants’ ranks (in Army equivalents, where the participant was not an Army member) was as follows: 16.8% were Privates, 42.6% were in the junior ranks (Corporal or Master Corporal), 24.7% were in the senior ranks (ranging from Sergeant to Chief Warrant Officer), and 15.9% were in the officer ranks (ranging from Officer Cadet to Lieutenant Colonel; there were no General Officers in the sample). There was no compensation for participating in this study.

Procedure Paper and pencil surveys were administered onsite at 14 military bases across Canada and at one in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Military personnel were told by a superior officer to go to a room at their designated base. When they arrived, they were informed that they had fulfilled their duty, but that they were welcome to participate in a self-paced survey. Participants were informed that the survey was designed to investigate the

380 opinions of Army personnel on issues concerning the organizational culture and climate of the Army, which would be used to develop policies and plans to guide military life in the future. The minority of participants from the Air Force or Navy was free to complete the survey from the perspective of the military branch that was pertinent to them. Recruits were told that if they elected to participate, they could withdraw at any time without negative consequence. Due to logistical difficulties, the number of recruits who declined to participate was unrecorded. Participants completed the survey individually within a group setting.

Materials Four related scales were used to measure participants’ attitudes regarding the honorable behavior of (a) military leaders above their unit’s chain of command (HONOR-1), (b) leaders in their unit (HONOR-2), (c) their peers (HONOR-3), and (d) their members of lower rank (i.e., subordinates) (HONOR-4). Each honor scale consisted of the same eight items, which measured the extent to which each of the target groups “do not tolerate dishonesty or unethical behavior,” “are serious about honesty and integrity,” “are courageous,” “are loyal,” “follow orders and regulations to the letter,” “are conscientious about doing their duty,” “are considerate of others and they will ensure all people are treated with dignity,” and “do the right thing even if it is not convenient or speedy.” Participants responded to each item on the honor scales and on subsequent scales in this study using a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The presentation of the scale items was blocked by level in the chain of command, proceeding from the highest to the lowest level. Although it would have been advantageous to counterbalance the order in which these scales were presented, for logistical simplicity, the research team collecting the data did not do so. The honor scales had high reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .90 to .92. Participants’ willingness to risk their lives in operations that could require lethal force was measured using a 6-item scale (RISK-LIFE).

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(3) Participants were asked if they were prepared to put their lives at risk “to defend Canadian territory,” “to defend Canadian citizens at home or abroad,” “in peace support operations,” “in combat operations abroad to defend an ally of Canada,” “in humanitarian operations throughout the world,” and “in aid to civil power operations in Canada.” These six items cover a broad range of missions to which CF personnel may be assigned. The risk scale was reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = .84). A 7-item scale was used to measure participants’ affective commitment to the CF (AFFCOMM). The first six items of this scale were adapted from Meyer et al.’s (1993) affective commitment scale by changing the word “organization” to “Army.” These items include the following: “I really feel as if the Army’s problems are my own,” “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with the Army,” “I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ in the Army,” “I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to the Army,” “I do not feel a strong sense of ‘belonging’ to the Army,” “The Army has a great deal of personal meaning for me.” The seventh item was “For me, being a member of the Army represents the best of all possible professions.” The affective commitment scale was reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = .83). A 6-item scale adapted from Meyer et al.’s (1993) continuance commitment scale, once again by changing the word organization to Army, served as our measure of continuance commitment (CON-COMM). The items include the following: “I feel I have too few options to consider leaving the Army,” “It would be very hard for me to leave the Army right now, even if I wanted to,” “Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave the Army now,” “One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives,” “Right now, staying with the Army is a matter of necessity as much as desire,” and “If I had not already put so much of myself into the Army, I might consider working elsewhere.” The continuance commitment scale was reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = .80). Finally, participants’ sense of duty was measured with the following two items: “I serve

Mandel and Litt

381

Canadian society” and “I always use my skills and knowledge in the best interest of Canadians.” The duty scale (DUTY) was reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = .74).

Results In the present research, we employ a test-wise alpha level of .01 as the basis for claiming statistical significance. Given the large sample size, we encourage readers to consider the theoretical and practical significance of the findings in light of effect sizes, which we also report. We employ the Greenhouse–Geisser estimate in tests of repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) where there are violations of sphericity.

Perceived Honor Across the Vertical Honor Spectrum We began by examining the participants’ assessed honor as a function of their peers’ vertical honor and their own rank. To do so, we divided our sample into low-ranking junior noncommissioned members (i.e., Privates, Corporals, and Master Corporals, 59%) and higher ranking noncommissioned or commissioned officers (i.e., Sergeant and above, 41%). Then we conducted a 2 (rank) × 4 (vertical honor) mixed ANOVA on assessed honor (vertical honor was the repeated-measures factor). The main effect of vertical honor was

significant, Greenhouse–Geisser F(2.03, 4546.04) = 160.71, p < .001, ηp2 = .07. However, it was clarified by a significant interaction effect, Greenhouse–Geisser F(2.03, 4546.04) = 59.62, p < .001, ηp2 = .03. The main effect of rank was not significant. As Table 1 shows, leaders above the unit (i.e., those with the highest vertical honor) were perceived as having the lowest level of honor in both the low- and high-rank subsamples. The moderating effect of rank was evident mainly in terms of assessments of subordinates’ honor: lower ranking participants saw those members having the lowest vertical honor (subordinates) as having more honor than peers or leaders, whereas higher ranking participants showed little discrimination in their assessments of subordinates, peers, and leaders in their unit. A comparable analysis was conducted in which the participants’ gender replaced the participants’ rank as a between-subjects factor. In addition to the significant effect of vertical honor already reported, this analysis revealed a significant, albeit weak, main effect of gender, F(1, 2203) = 8.97, p = .003, ηp2 = .004. As shown in Table 1, females assigned more honor to their military compatriots than did males. The Gender × Vertical Honor interaction effect was not significant. In order to ascertain whether the effect of vertical honor, and the contrast of higher level leaders and subordinates, in particular, was due mainly to a subset of the items, we examined the

Table 1.  Mean Assessed Honor by Vertical Honor, Participants’ Rank, and Participant’s Gender. Vertical Honor     Low rank High rank Female Male Overall



Subordinates

Peers

M

SD

M

3.96 3.67 4.01 3.81 3.84

1.39 0.85 1.25 1.19 1.21

3.48 3.68 3.58 3.56 3.56

Leaders in unit

Leaders above unit

Overall

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

0.70 0.63 0.68 0.68 0.68

3.48 3.68 3.64 3.55 3.56

0.78 0.72 0.78 0.76 0.77

3.29 3.41 3.47 3.32 3.33

0.80 0.72 0.73 0.77 0.77

3.55 3.61 3.67 3.56 3.57

0.68 0.55 0.62 0.63 0.63

Note. The sample sizes are 1,330 for low-ranking participants, 910 for high-ranking participants, 312 for females, and 1,893 for males. The bottom row labeled “Overall” is based on the full sample of 2,254. The values in the rows and columns labeled “Overall” show the mean and standard deviation of the HONOR scale used in predictive analyses reported in this article.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(3)

382 effect of vertical honor on each individual item that comprised the honor scales. Without exception, the mean ratings assigned to leaders above the participant’s unit’s chain of command were significantly lower than those assigned to subordinates (for main effects and pair-wise tests, all ps < .001). The effect size of the leader–subordinate contrasts was the smallest for the item “not tolerating dishonesty or unethical behavior” (d = −0.12) and it was the largest for the item “being courageous” (d = −0.74). Finally, as shown in Table 2, participants’ assessments of honor across the four levels of vertical honor were all significantly positively correlated with each other, all ps < .001.

Honor and Willingness to Risk One’s Life in Military Combat Operations We first correlated the four measures of assessed honor with RISK-LIFE. Each measure was significantly correlated at the .01 alpha level, with r(2252) ranging from .06 for assessments of subordinates to .15 for assessments of peers. Given that each measure was significantly correlated with RISK-LIFE, we constructed an HONOR scale based on the average of the four assessments. This scale had acceptable reliability, Cronbach’s alpha = .68 (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics). We tested the predictive utility of HONOR on RISK-LIFE

using a multiple regression model including HONOR, rank (i.e., low vs. high), gender, the HONOR × Rank interaction, and the HONOR × Gender interaction (where rank and gender were zerocentered). HONOR had a significant predictive effect on RISK-LIFE, β = .10, t = 3.23, p = .001. Rank, gender, and their interactions with HONOR were not significant predictors, smallest p > .15. Next, we tested whether our measure of affective commitment, AFF-COMM (M = 3.33, SD = 0.74), mediated the predictive effect of HONOR on RISK-LIFE. Figure 1 shows the results of the mediator model. First, as one would expect based on the preceding regression results, HONOR, as a sole predictor, predicted RISK-LIFE. Second, HONOR predicted the putative mediator, AFFCOMM. Third, the mediator predicted RISKLIFE controlling for HONOR. Finally, HONOR no longer significantly predicted RISK-LIFE controlling for AFF-COMM. The Sobel test showed that the effect of HONOR on RISKLIFE was significantly attenuated, z = 12.13, p < .001. The product of the standardized regression weights (betas) for the indirect effect provides a measure of effect size for mediation. Preacher and Kelley (2011) refer to this measure as the completely standardized indirect effect. According to J. Cohen’s (1988) standards, products of .01, .09, and .25 correspond to small, medium, and large effects, respectively. That product was equal to .11

Table 2.  Correlations Among Honor Assessments Across Vertical Honor. Vertical honor

Peers

Leaders in unit

Leaders above unit

Subordinates Peers Leaders in unit

.37

.27 .43

.23 .27 .51

0.03 (0.03)

0.15** (0.02) HONOR

0.39** (0.02)

AFF-COMM

0.31** (0.02)

RISK-LIFE

Figure 1.  Model of mediation by affective commitment. Weights shown are unstandardized regression weights with standard errors in parentheses.

Mandel and Litt

383

in the present case. Thus, affective commitment fully mediated the predictive effect of honor on willingness to risk one’s life in the course of duty, with the mediation constituting a medium effect size. Recall that, whereas we predicted that affective commitment would mediate the relation between honor and accepting unlimited liability, we divergently predicted that our measure of continuance commitment, CON-COMM (M = 3.09, SD = 0.80), would not mediate that relation. Thus, we ran a comparable test of mediation. In fact, HONOR did significantly, albeit negatively, predict CON-COMM, β = −.06, t = 2.85, p = .004. However, CON-COMM did not predict RISK-LIFE controlling for HONOR, as mediation would require, β = −.03, t = −1.62, p = .11. Given the sample size of the present study, tests of significance on their own are of especially limited value, even with the strict alpha level set in this study. It is obvious that the regression coefficients are significantly different. To provide a comparative sense of the predictive effect of HONOR on AFF-COMM and CON-COMM, we compared the effect sizes of the two singlepredictor models. For the prediction of AFFCOMM by HONOR, the effect was of a medium size, Cohen’s f2 = .13. In contrast, the comparable effect for the prediction of CON-COMM by HONOR was trivial, Cohen’s f2 = .004. We conducted a final mediator analysis with DUTY (M = 4.06, SD = 0.74) as the putative mediator. As Figure 2 shows, HONOR predicted the mediator (Cohen’s f2 = .10), which in turn predicted RISK-LIFE controlling for the predictor. HONOR remained a significant predictor of RISK-LIFE after controlling for DUTY. However, the Sobel test revealed that the effect

was significantly attenuated, z = 8.54, p < .001. The completely standardized indirect effect was equal to .07. Thus, DUTY partially mediated the predictive effect of HONOR on RISK-LIFE, with the mediation once again being of medium effect size. Given that AFF-COMM and DUTY were both significant mediators of the predictive relation between HONOR and RISK-LIFE, we conducted a final test to ascertain whether both mediators would remain significant predictors of RISK-LIFE when each was controlled in light of the other. The model including these two predictors was significant and of medium effect size, F(2, 2251) = 166.05, p < .001, Cohen’s f2 = .13. Both predictors were significant: for AFFCOMM, β = .27, t = 13.01, p < .001); for DUTY, β = .16, t = 7.63, p < .001. Thus, in spite of the full mediation of AFF-COMM, DUTY adds independent utility in the prediction of RISK-LIFE.

Discussion Perceived Honor Across the Vertical Honor Spectrum This research revealed a number of noteworthy findings that extend our understanding of the importance of honor as a focal concept in the profession of arms. A key finding was that military members’ perceptions of their peers’ virtuebased honor were not simply based on their vertical honor, or, even more specifically, their rank honor (Stewart, 1994). Indeed, both lower and higher ranking participants assessed higher level leaders as being less honorable than their lower ranking military compatriots. It was also evident that among the lower ranking participants,

0.15** (0.02)

HONOR

0.33** (0.02)

0.08* (0.02)

DUTY

0.23** (0.02)

RISK-LIFE

Figure 2.  Model of mediation by duty. Weights shown are unstandardized regression weights with standard errors in parentheses.

384 they (perhaps self-servingly) viewed the lower ranks as being the most honorable. Evoking Asch’s (1940) change of meaning hypothesis, one possible explanation for why the higher level leaders were assessed more negatively than their subordinates in terms of virtue-based honor is that participants’ assessment standards might have changed across levels of the vertical honor spectrum. That is, more stringent standards might have been assigned to leaders than to subordinates. Questions that directly compare the perceived honor of different rank-defined groups could be used in future research to help resolve this issue. For instance, it would be useful to know how a comparable sample of military personnel would respond to questions that asked them to rank order their subordinates, peers, and leaders on honor-bestowing attributes such as integrity, courage, loyalty, and so on. It is also possible that the serial, within-subjects assessment of the honor items sensitized participants to the group comparisons that could be made. Thus, it would also be useful to know whether the findings would be comparable had the various honor scales been administered in a betweensubjects design instead (or at least in a randomized or counterbalanced within-subjects design). A distinct possibility, however, is that the results genuinely reflect a lower perceived sense of virtue-based honor in high-level military leaders than in lower ranking military members. That would not be too surprising, given that few participants would have had direct exposure to higher level leaders. Thus, if one’s perception of the virtue-based honor possessed by another depends on being able to recall specific instances of the other individual’s virtuous behavior, there would be few, if any, opportunities to do so for the assessment of high-level leaders. Indeed, the few instances that might be recalled would most likely be from second-hand accounts rather than direct experience. And, yet, literature suggests that the perceived integrity of leaders depends on observing their commitment in action to their stated moral and ethical values (Becker, 1998; Simons, 2002). Moreover, literature (e.g., Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Treviño, Hartman, &

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(3) Brown, 2000) suggests that the perception of ethical leadership depends not only on the moral and ethical goodness of the leader as a manager but also as a person. The remoteness of high-level leaders, therefore, may constitute a negative strike against them if it prevents subordinates from developing a perception of them as intrinsically ethical actors. Finally, it is possible that high-level leaders are seen to be preoccupied with “climbing to the top,” “playing the game,” and “not rocking the boat,” exhibiting in Schlenker’s (2008) terms expedient rather than principled commitment to their ethical values. In contrast, as the military examples discussed earlier (e.g., Gal, 1985; Thompson et al., 2008; Vaughan & Schum, 2001) suggest, virtuebased honor often calls for the sacrifice of such self-serving considerations in favor of responding to a higher ethical principle. Those examples strikingly illustrate the forfeiture of expediency. Moreover, Sparks and Farsides (2011) have shown that “sincerity” and “standing up for something one believes in” are important predictors of perceived integrity in public figures. Future research might investigate the intriguing hypothesis that people tend to draw negative dispositional inferences about the virtue-based honor of highly accomplished leaders simply because they have attained a high level of vertical success. If so, leaders might have to overcome the challenge of “proving their subordinates wrong” if they wish to be seen as ethical and honorable leaders.

Honor and Willingness to Risk One’s Life in Military Combat Operations Another key finding of the present study was that the perceived honor of one’s military compatriots (when averaged across the vertical honor spectrum) predicted participants’ self-reported willingness to risk their lives in performing their military duties during combat operations. This finding coheres well with Vaughan and Schum’s (2001) earlier finding that frequently mentioned factors that motivated U.S. ground troops to fight during the Vietnam War were leadership

Mandel and Litt and one’s primary military group, and it suggests that the perceived virtue-based honor of one’s compatriots may have mediated the effect of those factors on the decision to continue fighting (and risking one’s life). Moreover, clarifying the preceding finding, we found that the predictive effect of honor on participants’ willingness to risk their lives in the course of performing their professional duties was mediated by participants’ affective commitment to the CF and by their sense of duty to their country and its citizens. In both cases, the size of the effects was medium, and in the case of affective commitment, the mediation was complete. Although these findings are correlational, and thus not causally binding in any strong sense, they nevertheless suggest that how one perceives the honor of one’s professional peers can affect how much one wants to be a member of their professional organization (i.e., affective commitment) and how much one wants to serve others in a professional capacity (i.e., duty). The fact that the perceived honor of participants’ compatriots predicted their affective commitment to the CF is consistent with recent studies showing the positive predictive effect of ethical leadership on job satisfaction and affective commitment (e.g., Neubert et al., 2009; Ruiz, Ruiz, & Martínez, 2011). However, the present study extends the analysis of how the perceived ethics of others predicts one’s own attitudes and behavioral intentions, given that no previous study has studied troops’ willingness to risk their lives as a function of the variables studied here. The comparison of the effect of honor on continuance commitment also strengthens our confidence in the foregoing interpretation because, whereas the predictive effect of perceived honor on affective commitment was of a medium effect size, the comparable effect on continuance commitment was, as expected, trivial in size, despite its statistical significance. Once again, although the findings are correlational, they nevertheless lend some support to the notion that, whereas perceiving one’s military compatriots as honorable makes troops want to be affiliated with them and the organization they

385 represent more strongly, it does not make troops feel as though they need to be affiliated (indeed, it appears to be associated with feeling slightly less this way). This finding is consistent with the notion that honor plays an important role in defining an individual’s social identity. People want to belong to groups in which they take pride, and part of the basis of that pride may be their perception of how honorable its members behave. Although a measure of normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer et al., 1993)— namely, the extent to which one is committed to an organization out of a sense of moral obligation—was not included in the present study, it might be instructive to do so in future research. One might expect that troops’ willingness to risk their lives in the line of duty would be directly predicted by their normative commitment to the military. It seems less certain whether normative commitment would, in turn, be predicted by troops’ perceptions of their compatriots’ virtue-based honor.

Implications for Research on Honor In at least one important respect, the present research represents a novel direction for psychological research on honor. As noted earlier, most of the psychological literature on the topic has examined how culture moderates the meaning of honor or the emotional and behavioral consequences of reputational challenges to one’s honor (e.g., D. Cohen et al., 1996; Vandello et al., 2008). In much of that research, the cultures described as having a stronger focus on honor are also shown to have more aggressive responses to reputational challenges to one’s or one’s family’s honor. This may create the impression that honor is in fact a deleterious cultural product that serves mainly to heighten aggression, much as narcissism is believed to do for individuals confronted with ego-threatening negative feedback (e.g., Ferriday, Vartanian, & Mandel, 2011; Jones & Paulhus, 2010). Without denying that threats to reputational honor can provoke negative emotion and aggressive responses, we propose that this is only one (and a fairly negative) side to honor. Indeed, it is

386 widely recognized in military studies that what separates war from mere barbarism is the ability of troops to act honorably, such as taking the welfare of civilians into account, even when doing so puts their own lives at great risk (e.g., see Baker, 2011; Ignatieff, 1997). Whereas honor is often associated in the psychological literature with a lack of restraint in the face of reputational threats, it is almost always associated with such restraint— and, indeed, most often with self-sacrifice—in the profession of arms. We believe that an important difference between previous research on honorbound cultures and the honor-bound culture of the military is that in the latter case the foundation of the honor notion is virtue-based. It is the expression of those virtues that reflect the values of professions of arms that primarily contributes to its members’ sense of honor (Chief of Defence Staff, 2003). Thus, we recommend that future research on honor broaden its focus by looking at the importance of the concept in organizational contexts. Moreover, the present research indicates the value of studying how an individual’s perceptions of others’ honor might influence that individual’s own affective, behavioral and cognitive responses. Future research, for instance, could examine whether professionals’ perceptions of their peers’ honor influenced their own sense of honor as a member of that professional group. Finally, we encourage researchers in this area to forge links to other areas of psychological research that might shed important light on virtue-based conceptions of honor, such as the literature on perceived integrity (e.g., Schlenker, 2008) or moral and ethical conflict management and decision making (Haidt, 2001; Mandel & Vartanian, 2008), to name a couple of examples. Acknowledgements We thank the members of the original Royal Military College of Canada project team that developed the Army-Culture-Climate Survey and provided us with access to the dataset. We are especially grateful to Danielle Charbonneau, a member of that team, who provided invaluable background information that enabled the present research. We also thank her, along with

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(3) Patricia Rodriguez Mosquera, Keith Stewart, Peter Suedfeld, and two anonymous reviewers for their feedback on drafts of this article. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding The Canadian Forces Chief of Land Staff provided partial funding for this research through the Shape Army Culture Project.

References Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18. doi: 10.1111/ j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x Asch, S. E. (1940). Studies in the principles of judgments and attitudes: II. Determination of judgments by group and by ego standards. Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 433–465. doi: 10.1080/ 00224545.1940.9921487 Baker, D.-P. (2011). Just warriors, Inc.: The ethics of privatized force. New York, NY: Continuum. Barrett, F. J., & Sarbin, T. R. (2008). Honor as a moral category: A historical-linguistic analysis. Theory & Psychology, 18, 5–25. doi: 10.1177/ 0959354307086920 Becker, T. (1998). Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness. Academy of Management Review, 23, 154–161. doi: 10.2307/ 259104 Bradley, J. P., & Charbonneau, D. (2004). Measuring professional attitudes in Canada’s Army. Canadian Journal of Police & Security Services, 2, 159–170. Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616. doi: 10.1016/j. leaqua.2006.10.004 Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002 Capstick, M., Farley, K., Wild, W., & Parkes, M. (2005). Canada’s soldiers: Military ethos and Canadian values in the 21st century Army: The major findings of The Army Culture and Climate Survey and The Army Socio-Cultural Survey (CROP 3SC). Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Government. Chief of Defence Staff. (2003). Duty with honour: The profession of arms in Canada. Kingston, Canada:

Mandel and Litt Canadian Defence Academy, Canadian Forces Leadership Institute. 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, 945–960. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.70.5.945 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate. (2005). United States Army field manual No. 1. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. Cullen, J. B., Parboteeah, K. P., & Victor, B. (2003). The effects of ethical climates on organizational commitment: A two-study analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 127–141. doi: 10.1023/A:1025089819456 Ferriday, C. L., Vartanian, O., & Mandel, D. R. (2011). Public but not private ego threat triggers aggression in narcissists. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 564–568. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.801 French, S. E. (2005). Code of the warrior: The values and ideals of warrior cultures throughout history. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Gal, R. (1985). Commitment and obedience in the military: An Israeli case study. Armed Forces & Society, 11, 553–564. doi: 10.1177/0095327X8501100405 Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.108.4.814 Ignatieff, M. (1997). The warrior’s honor: Ethnic war and the modern conscience. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books. IJzerman, H., & Cohen, D. (2011). Grounding cultural syndromes: Body comportment and values in honor and dignity cultures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 456–467. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.806 IJzerman, H., van Dijk, W. W., & Gallucci, M. (2007). A bumpy train ride: A field experiment on insult, honor, and emotional reactions. Emotion, 7, 869– 875. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.869 Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Different provocations trigger aggression in narcissists and psychopaths. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 12–18. doi: 10.1177/ 1948550609347591 Leung, A. K.-Y., & Cohen, D. (2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 507–526. doi: 10.1037/a0022151

387 Mandel, D. R., & Vartanian, O. (2008). Taboo or tragic: Effect of tradeoff type on moral choice, conflict, and confidence. Mind & Society, 7, 215–226. doi: 10.1007/s11299-007-0037-3 Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.78.4.538 Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152–156. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.74.1.152 Miller, W. I. (1993). Humiliation and other essays on honor, social discomfort, and violence. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., & Chonko, L. B. (2009). The virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 157–170. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0037-9 Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Olsthoorn, P. (2005). Honor as a motive for making sacrifices. Journal of Military Ethics, 4, 183–197. doi: 10.1080/15027570500230262 Pitt-Rivers, J. (1965). Honour and social status. In J. G. Peristiany (Ed.), Honour and shame: The values of Mediterranean society (pp. 18–77). London, UK: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93–115. doi: 10.1037/a0022658 Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., Manstead, A. S. R., &Fischer, A. H. (2002). Honor in the Mediterranean and Northern Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 16–36. doi: 10.1177/0022022102033001002 Ruiz, P., Ruiz, C., & Martínez, R. (2011). Improving the “leader–follower” relationship: Top manager or supervisor? The ethical leadership trickle-down effect on follower job response. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 587–608. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0670-3 Schlenker, B. R. (2008). Integrity and character: Implications of principled and expedient ethical ideologies. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27, 1078–1125. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2008.27.10.1078 Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Neubaum, D. O. (2005). The effect of leader moral development on

388 ethical climate and employee attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 97, 135–151. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.006 Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18–35. doi: 10.1287/orsc.13.1.18.543 Sparks, P., & Farsides, T. (2011). Social dimensions of judgments of integrity in public figures. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 170–179. doi: 10.1348/014466610X520140 Stewart, F. H. (1994). Honor. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Stouffer, S. A., Lumsdaine, A. A., Lumsdaine, M. H., Williams, R. M., Jr., Smith, M. B., Janis, I. L., & Cottrell, L. S., Jr. (1949). The American soldier: Combat and its aftermath. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Thompson, M. M., Thomson, M. H., & Adams, B. D. (2008). Moral and ethical dilemmas in Canadian Forces military operation: Qualitative and descriptive analyses of commanders’ operational experiences (Defence R&D Canada – Toronto Technical Report [TR-2008183]). Retrieved from http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc. gc.ca/PDFS/unc88/p531856.pdf Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral manager: How executives

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(3) develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42, 128–142. doi: 10.2307/41166057 Uskul, A. K., Cross, S. E., Sunbay, Z., Gercek-Swing, B., & Ataca, B. (in press). Honor bound: The cultural construction of honor in Turkey and the Midwestern US. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (2003). Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 997–1010. doi: 10.1037/00223514.84.5.997 Vandello, J. A., Cohen, D., & Ransom, S. (2008). U.S. southern and northern differences in perceptions of norms about aggression: Mechanisms for the perpetuation of a culture of honor. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 162–177. doi: 10.1177/0022022107313862 Vaughan, D. K., & Schum, W. A. (2001). Motivation in U.S. narrative accounts of the ground war in Vietnam. Armed Forces & Society, 28, 7–31. doi: 10.1177/0095327X0102800102 Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Agle, B. (2005). “Somebody I look up to”: Ethical role models in organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 34, 313−330. doi: org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.08.001

The ultimate sacrifice: Perceived peer honor predicts ... - SAGE Journals

Email: [email protected]. Most professions are guided by a code of con- duct that outlines the members' obligations. Vir- tually all such codes include ...

568KB Sizes 1 Downloads 255 Views

Recommend Documents

Download PDF - SAGE Journals
Tweet. Long-term study of strategic intelligence shows good fore- casting and evidence of effective communication of uncer- tainties to policymakers. Key Points.

Induced Perceptual Grouping - SAGE Journals
were contained within a group or crossed group bound- aries as defined by induced grouping due to similarity, proximity, or common fate. Induced grouping was ...

Teacher Recruitment and Retention - SAGE Journals
States to provide a high-quality education to every student. To do so ... teacher recruitment and retention but also as a guide to the merit and importance of these ...

Physicochemical properties and structural ... - SAGE Journals
The phys- ical, chemical, and microbial changes in foods have ..... cator of starch granule disruption degree and was used to evaluate ..... Rahman MS. (2014).

Capability Stretching in Product Innovation - SAGE Journals
its technological capabilities to bridge the gap between what it has already known and what the development of a new product requires it to know. Capability ...

The strengths and weaknesses of research designs ... - SAGE Journals
Wendy Walker MSc Health Studies; Post Graduate Diploma in Adult. Education, BSc(Hons) Nursing Studies, Diploma in Professional Studies in Nursing.

Getting to Know You: The Relational Self-Construal ... - SAGE Journals
text of a new roommate relationship, with a focus on cognitive aspects of ... Keywords: relational self-construal; social cognition; roommates. I count myself in ...

A Computer-Aided Method to Expedite the ... - SAGE Journals
This study presented a fully-automated computer-aided method (scheme) to detect meta- ... objects (i.e., inter-phase cells, stain debris, and other kinds of.

A psychometric evaluation of the Group Environment ... - SAGE Journals
the competing models, acceptable fit indices. However, very high factor correlations rendered problematic the discriminant validity of the questionnaire.

International Terrorism and the Political Survival of ... - SAGE Journals
leadership data and International Terrorism: Attributes of Terrorist Events' ter- rorism data for the 1968–2004 period, we find that autocrats who experience higher instances of transnational terrorist attacks are more likely to exit power. Demo- c

Weber's The Protestant Ethic as Hypothetical ... - SAGE Journals
Weber's The Protestant Ethic as Hypothetical. Narrative of Original Accumulation. PETER BREINER State University of New York at Albany, USA. ABSTRACT In this article, I address the 'hypothetical', 'self-referential' and. 'constructed' nature of Weber

Unequal Opportunities and Ethnic Origin: The Labor ... - SAGE Journals
Keywords ethnic origin, equality of opportunity, discrimination, France, education, labor market. 1. ... attainment, access to employment, and earnings acquisition.

Does the Human Motor System Simulate Pinocchio's ... - SAGE Journals
1Institute of Neuroscience, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan; 2Laboratories for Cognitive Neuroscience,. National Yang Ming University, Taipei, ...

What Explains Personality Covariation? A Test of the ... - SAGE Journals
We advance a novel explanation for personality covariation, which views trait covariance ... Using personality survey data from participant samples in 55 nations (N ¼ 17,637), we ... the Big Five dimensions form the basis for either one (Musek,.

Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals
Abstract Peer review is fundamental to science as we know it, but is also a source of delay in getting discoveries communicated to the world. .... different disciplines, and as journals can try to surreptitiously manipulate their impact ... review de

Global Product Branding and International Education - SAGE Journals
clientele, as well as for children of the host country clientele with aspira- tions towards social mobility in a global context. It may be argued that an outcome of ...

Transfer learning on convolutional activation feature ... - SAGE Journals
systems for hollowness assessment of large complex com- posite structures. ... Wilk's λ analysis is used for biscuit's crack inspection, and the approach .... layers, data with the ROIs are passed to fast R-CNN object detection network, where the ..

Optimization of corn, rice and buckwheat ... - SAGE Journals
Optimization of corn, rice and buckwheat formulations for gluten-free wafer production. Ismail Sait Dogan1, Onder Yildiz2 and Raciye Meral1. Abstract.

External kin, economic disparity and minority ethnic ... - SAGE Journals
Seton Hall University, USA. Christopher Paik. New York University, Abu Dhabi. Abstract. What is the relationship between economic grievance and ethnopolitical ...

Some Further Thoughts on Emotions and Natural Kinds - SAGE Journals
In this brief reply, which cannot do justice to all of the valuable points my commentators have raised, I defend the view that the notion of natural kind I have introduced satisfies the ontological independence criterion and is in keeping with the co

Is a knowledge society possible without freedom of ... - SAGE Journals
The internet, and in particular the world wide web, have proved a pow- erful tool .... tained information infrastructure but not the ability to create new knowledge by adding value to the ..... Lack of access to pornographic web sites is hardly likel

A Test of Some Common Contentions About ... - SAGE Journals
Teachers' responses to these articles did not support any of the common contentions about research genres. I conclude from the study that genre is not the most ...