A quantitative assessment of honor culture men and the impact of sports, key demographics, and affiliations on work discrimination

Abstract

This study replicates and extends previous findings on work discrimination by focusing on white lower-class males, a neglected vulnerable discriminated group, and distinguishes how belonging or not belonging to an honor culture impacts them and lower SES others’ work discrimination experiences. We also analyzed variables that could act to mitigate against work discrimination experiences. Examining data from the 2009 High School Longitudinal Study (HSLS) hierarchical regression modeling results showed: (1) honor-culture male students who participated in high school sports are less likely to experience work discrimination than their peers who didn’t (2) the higher the socioeconomic status (SES), the less likely males feel discriminated against at work; but SES was more related to work discrimination in honor cultures than in non-honor cultures (3) across all models, Black, LatinX, and other-races males experience greater work discrimination than their white peers; but race was more related to work discrimination in non-honor cultures than in honor cultures (4) White honor-culture males experience greater work discrimination than their higher-income white male counterparts.

Keywords:

• honor Culture
• race
• sports participation
• work discrimination
• hierarchical regression
• Latinx

View correction statement:

Correction

1.

Today’s business professions are more likely to address biases towards minorities and view white males—no matter their socioeconomic status—as privileged (Banet-Weiser, 2021). Discriminatory experiences begin in school. Studies show that teachers tend to discriminate more against boys in the classroom than girls (Terrier, 2020). These experiences could be reflected in boys future work experiences. While multiple previous studies have examined biases against girls (e.g., Bell & Juvonen, 2020) and minority groups (e.g., Gonzales et al., 2021), lower-class honor-culture males, who are vulnerable to mistreatment but considered by some as having privileges have not been widely studied. In particular, findings show that white males who face work discrimination tend to experience more negative psychological effects (i.e., lower job satisfaction and higher work stress) and are more likely to leave their jobs than minorities (Ng et al., 2020). In order to address this issue and extend research on honor culture male experiences with work discrimination, we analyze possible mitigating effects such as sports, key demographics, and affiliations (i.e., children, friendships, gender-specific attitudes towards women) and whether they temper their discrimination experiences.

Our investigation attempts to see whether lower-income honor culture white males are discriminated against at work and contrasts their work discrimination experiences with honor-culture Black and LatinX populations. Overall, this paper contributes to ongoing work in understanding the nature and causes of work discrimination by means of an experiment which replicates and extends previous findings on work discrimination. We focus particularly on honor-culture white lower-class males—a neglected vulnerable discriminated group—and distinguishing how belonging or not belonging to an honor culture impacts them and lower-SES black and Latinx men's work discrimination experiences. To accomplish this, we examine honor-culture men, sports, key demographics, and affiliation factors (i.e., whether one has children, friendships, or gender-specific attitudes towards women) to see their impact on male work discrimination. We begin by explaining cultures of honor and the literature relating to work discrimination, and then follow up on characteristics that might alleviate work discrimination.

1. Honor culture

In honor cultures, a person (usually a man) feels obliged to protect his reputation by responding to insults, affronts, and threats, oftentimes with violence (Lin et al., 2022). These honor-culture values evolved from immigrant herders (Ulster Scots) who transmitted honor values from generation to generation and migrated to the Southern and Western sections of the U.S (Brown, 2016). Henry (2009) pointed out that honor-culture members tend to have a lower SES than those from non-honor cultures. He explained that status disparities between honor cultures originated with honor cultures’ origin as herding societies, which were constantly subject to outside threats with little help from law enforcement (van Osch, 2017). Just as herding life relies on the ability to protect oneself and one’s property from external threats, honor-culture male populations continue to respond violently to reputation threats as an adaptive strategy (Foster et al., 2022) and do not apologize when they wrong others (Lin et al., 2022). Honor is essential due to the perception that access to honor is limited and bestowed by others.

This contrasts with non-honor culture males, who believe that individuals have intrinsic self-worth unaffected by external determinants. If there is enough honor to go around, losing a little here and there carries few consequences. Therefore, while non-honor culture members may know honor and shame, they do not see honor as a limited good and thus do not contest it with the same intensity (Brown, 2016). Consequently, discrimination may be less likely to affect their self-esteem (Henry, 2009).

Alternatively, in honor cultures, others’ disrespect is exaggerated, and dire consequences often result. For example, if a driver cuts off another driver in the Southern U.S., a chain of events is likely to devolve such as driver-created car accidents, fistfights, or even murder (Gelfand, 2018). In the past, duels were the norm for resolving honor infractions. However, even though honor cultures have “graduated” from such practices, the honor mentality remains. Therefore, exacting care to be polite is the prudent norm to avoid confrontations in honor cultures (Brown, 2016).

It is still possible, however, to be polite while disconfirming another person as in the case of work discrimination. Disconfirmation is a communication pattern that ignores another’s presence (DeVito, 2007) where empathy is missing. Disconfirmation is one of the most damaging behaviors in workplace interactions (Sommerfeldt & Kent, 2020). In contrast, researchers found that empathy as opposed to disconfirmation is a primary driver of worker satisfaction (Chou et al., 2005)

2. Work discrimination

Research shows that workplace discrimination is associated with multiple employee outcomes through both job stress and justice perceptions (ZareKhafri et al., 2022). Additionally, work discrimination is most detrimental when it is observed rather than personally experienced and interpersonal rather than formal (Dhanani et al., 2018).

Despite these experiences, employment discrimination is frequently practiced throughout the U.S. even though it is illegal; as is evidenced by the steady number of formal discrimination complaints that are filed each year with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Joun et al., 2018).

Discrimination – be it based on race, class, gender, age, or sexual orientation—refers to the perception of being treated unfairly at work (Adhikari, 2022). While individuals can identify and challenge blatant discrimination, it becomes trickier when work discrimination is displayed as a subtle form of behavior and attitudes (Jones et al., 2017). Prejudicial attitudes cause stress (Frost et al., 2015). Stress, intertwined with anxiety, loss of self-esteem, and fear can lead to overall poor physical and emotional health (Marmot et al., 2008) as well as higher turnover and lower productivity in the workplace (Ekienabor, 2016).

Though the most discriminated groups at work are blacks, Hispanics, and women (Gonzales et al., 2021), working-class U.S. honor culture men who are particularly sensitive to honor given their lower social class status (Henry, 2009), may be more at risk for experiencing work discrimination than their non-honor-culture counterparts. Research suggests that low-income white men experience worse work discrimination compared to their upper-class white counterparts (Gonzales et al., 2021) generally, but it is possible that honor-culture values make their work discrimination experiences worse. White men generally experience more work stress and lower job satisfaction when they perceive discrimination at work (Ng et al., 2020) and are more likely to leave their current job than minority employees. Given that a large concentration of low-SES white population resides in honor cultures, we hypothesize the following:

H1:

Honor culture men will experience higher perceived work discrimination than non-honor-culture men.

3. Sports

Participation in sports affords a significant status to males in honor cultures (Allison et al., 2018; Crook, 2018). Playing sports in general can be a stress-reducing social activity (Gasiūnienė & Miežienė, 2021) which might explain why findings show that sports participation could be responsible for multiple socially desirable outcomes such as self-efficacy and self-esteem (Ouyang et al., 2020), well-being (Piñeiro-Cossio et al., 2021), and social acceptance (Albrecht et al., 2019; Piñeiro-Cossio et al., 2021). However, other results indicate that “jocks” report greater misconduct than non-jocks (Miller et al., 2005). Given the positive social effects related to school sports participation, in honor cultures, where social reputation is essential (Mosquera, 2013), participation in sports could have positive effects that reduce work discrimination. Sports participation could also influence whether one becomes part of a work in-group or an out-group that experiences work discrimination (Thompson, 2011).

Henry’s (2009) research shows that the greater tendency to aggress in the face of insults by white males in honor cultures is likely driven by their need to protect their self-worth. The low SES associated with members of honor cultures is not just a lack of resources, but is also a clear marker of psychological stigma and self-defensiveness (Henry, 2009). Regardless of race, findings show that those with a lower SES feel that they have a lower social rank, perceive more negative experiences in different life domains, experience greater depression and anxiety, and express greater self-defensiveness in their social interactions (Verbeek et al., 2019). These perceptions are consistent with outcomes for members of stigmatized social groups (van Veelen et al., 2020). In addition, findings show that reported discrimination—independent of demographic factors, general stressors, social desirability bias, racial identity, and SES—negatively affects people’s psychological resources of self-esteem and mastery (Williams et al., 2012).

As a result, even if a low SES is not responsible for reported work discrimination, the mere experience of feeling discriminated against over time wears away at peoples’ self-worth and takes away from their feelings of agency, leading to the passivity and hopelessness regarding future career prospects. Importantly, unlike their high-status counterparts, honor-culture men are less likely to communicate aggressively in response to insults or disrespect others when given the opportunity to validate their self-worth (Henry, 2009).

Lower-class honor-culture males are collectivistic (Puente-Dıaz, 2011) and feel connected by common enterprises—especially around male-dominated ones—like the police, armed forces, and sports teams (Bowman, 2007). These male honor groups form a loyalty and members are willing to subordinate themselves to these communal entities. It is possible that a connection between honor-culture superiors and subordinates in workplaces coalesce around sports and discrimination outcomes are diminished because of connections forged through group membership. As a result, we hypothesis that:

H2:

Sports participation among honor culture men will result in lower perceived work discrimination.

4. Key demographics

4.1. Socioeconomic statis

Subcultural factors likely influence peoples’ experiences with work discrimination. Below we will explore possible SES predictors such as whether people came from a single-parent home, whether they attended an urban high school, and whether they had children during high school as possibly affecting their experiences with work discrimination after high school. Finally, working while going to school may afford a particular competency status for people resulting in a more responsible impression that might diminish work discrimination. We contrast these possible predictors in honor culture and non-honor culture regions.

4.2. Region

People tend to act out roles written for them by their culture (Brown, 2016). As a result, honor-culture U.S. males who tend to be more collectivistic (Brown, 2016) also tend to conform more to their group (Ramirez Marin et al., 2019). These cultural characteristics can be found among U.S. honor cultures who Gelfand (2018) points out reside in the U.S. Census divisions of the South Atlantic (comprising Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia but not the District of Columbia) and East South-Central states (including Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee). While non-honor cultures usually reside in the Northeast (CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, and VT) and Midwest (IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, and WI).

4.3. Single-parent families

Evidence suggests that there is a relationship between a lower SES and discrimination generally (Potter et al., 2018), so we tested this relationship with work discrimination and demographic indicators. For example, increasingly, single-parent families are a fast-growing household type in the U.S (Werner, 2017). Although single-parent families are more prevalent, the stigma associated with this status (Yorks, 2022) could contribute to work discrimination. Protection in honor cultures could be more difficult if one is raised in a one-parent family and has a resulting lower-honor status. The stigma attached to this status could result in greater work discrimination. Thus, we hypothesized:

H3:

Honor culture men from single-parent homes will experience greater perceived work discrimination than non-honor-culture men.

4.4. Urban high schools

Where one lives is also a status marker, particularly if one’s neighborhood location is wealthy or lower class. Given the findings of overall discrimination in urban schools (Mroczkowski & Sánchez, 2015), we hypothesized that:

H4:

Honor culture men from urban high schools will experience higher perceived work discrimination than non-honor-culture men from urban high schools.

4.5. Employment

Workplace structures are set up with the assumption that men commit themselves to full-time employment (Fine et al., 2020). Thus, when a men holds a steady job, it tends to increase their credibility. What is more, the value of hard work could be appreciated by employers and employees alike. Employers tend to respect people who adapt and behave positively with reference to their professional life challenges (Succi & Canovi, 2020) such as people who were motivated to work during high school. Consequently, we hypothesize:

H5:

Honor culture men who worked while going to high school will experience lower perceived work discrimination than non-honor-culture men who worked while going to high school.

5. Affiliations

5.1. Childbearing

A social factor possibly triggering discrimination is whether a person has children. In honor cultures, a multitude of offspring bolsters masculinity (Brown, 2016). Those from honor cultures also place a high premium on strength and social respect regarding their family (Gelfand, 2018). For example, it is important for honor-culture males to have a reputation of strength and to be able to defend their families and belongings (Harinck et al., 2013). However, family composition could also be a plausible predictor of discrimination given that the impact of having children could possibly divide attention away from employment duties leading to negative consequences. Consequently, we hypothesize:

H6:

Honor culture men who had children in high school will experience higher perceived work discrimination than non-honor-culture men.

5.2. Friendship

Personal networks largely provide support-related social capital (Mishra, 2020).

Friendship affiliation is an important social factor that provides meaning to peoples’ lives (Merkin & Gareis, 2021). Friendship fosters individuals’ successful adaptation to life stress (Hojjat & Moyer, 2017), general self-esteem (Zuffianò et al., 2016), and provides individuals with a sense of dignity (Diener & Seligman, 2018). However, males tend to have fewer intimate friendships than females (Rose et al., 2022), leaving them at a disadvantage when coping with stress and discrimination. On the other hand, it may be possible that having friends during high school indicates sociability and prosocial relationships that could transfer to work relationships thus reducing discrimination. Given the positive attitudes, influence, and dignity that results from friendship, we hypothesize that:

H7:

Honor culture men who spent more time with friends will experience lower perceived work discrimination.

5.3. Attitudes towards women

Rodriguez Mosquera (2016) suggests that men and women follow different gender-specific honor codes that prescribe their appropriate behavior. In these cultures, honor is associated with status and males’ power to use their strength to carry out their will (Baldry et al., 2013). Accordingly, honor-culture males tend to have gender-specific views regarding what is appropriate behavior for men and women (Rodriguez Mosquera, 2016). Research shows that gender-role attitudes are related to discrimination (Sanchez et al., 2018) indicating that distinctions in gender roles in English performance, for example, could reflect negative attitudes towards gender and influence work discrimination. Given trends toward more integrated labor policies focused on promoting gender equality (Breda et al., 2020), we hypothesize that:

H8:

Honor culture men who hold more gender-specific attitudes towards women will experience higher perceived work discrimination than non-honor-culture men.

6. Method

6.1. Participants and data

Participants were all males. Based on the honor-culture literature (e.g., Gelfand, 2018) we operationalized honor cultures and non-honor cultures by region indicated in the section above labeled “Region”. The data for this research came from the High School Longitudinal Study 2009 (HSLS) (Ingels et al., 2011) which is the most recent on-going longitudinal study that includes surveying a student’s parents, teachers, school administrators, and school counselors. In 2009, the base line survey was administered to over 23,000 students (Burns et al., 2011). It was designed by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) a primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education in the U.S.

Follow-ups began in 2012 when most of the students would be in 11^th grade. In 2013, high school transcripts were collected. Finally, the last follow-up occurred in 2016, which would be indicative for most students of a (3 year) post-secondary education phase, in which many students were either in college, employed, or had never attended college.

6.2. Procedure

We analyzed the data using hierarchical logistic regression and running 9 models, 3 nested models for all male students, 3 nested models for male students in the Southern and Western Regions of the country, and 3 nested models for male students in the Northeast and Midwest.

6.2.1. Dependent variable

Work Discrimination is a dummy variable indicative of whether a student feels they have been discriminated against regarding work opportunities. 1 being coded as having been discriminated against and 0 coded as not having been discriminated against.

6.2.2. Independent variables

Sports is a dummy variable indicating whether a student has participated in sports outside of school since the fall of 2009, 1 being coded as “yes” and 0 being coded as “no.”

Socioeconomic Status is a standardized variable reflecting SES, which is a combination of income, education, and occupational prestige.

Two Parent Family is a dummy variable indicating whether or not the student is in a two-parent household, 1 being coded as “yes-two-parent household” and any non-two-parent household being coded as 0.

Urban is a dummy variable indicating whether the students’ school is in an urban environment or not. Urban schools are coded as 1, whereas all other school types (rural, suburban, town) are coded as 0.

Number of Children is a count variable reflecting the number of children the student has had in 2016.

Race is a series of dummy variables indicating the respondent’s race, with white being the reference category. Black, Latinx, and Other are individual categories individually coded as 1 to indicate a given race, and 0 to indicate not that given race.

Time Spent with friends is a variable indicative of the number of hours a day the respondent typically spends hanging out with friends.

Gender-specific attitudes was operationalized with the variable Males Better in English which reflects whether the student feels males are better in English and language arts as compared with females. It is a Likert scale with 1 being indicative of females being much better, 2 females are better, 3 males and females are even, 4 males are better, 5 males are much better.

Employed is a dummy variable indicative of whether the respondent is working three years after high school, all those who are working are coded as 1 and those not working (whether they are taking classes or not) are coded as 0.

7. Results

7.1. Univariate relationships

Table 1 shows a summary of the means, standard deviations, and other descriptive statistics for the dependent and independent variables. Table 2 presents logistic regression results.

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, ranges, and description of variables for all male students (N = 4,667)

Variable	Mean	S.D.	Range	Description: ELS Variable NAME and Label
Dependent Variable
Work Discrimination	0.15	0.36	0–1	S4DSCRMNTNWK “Discrimination Against: limited work opportunities”
Sports
Sports	0.55	0.50	0–1	S2SPORTS “participated in organized sports outside of school since fall 2009”
Demographics
Socioeconomic Status Composite	0.05	0.78	−1.93–2.57	X1SES Socioeconomic status composite
Two Parent Family	0.78	0.41	0–1	Recode of X1 P1-P2 relationship pattern; Parents coded as 1, all other coded as zero
Urban	0.28	0.45	0–1	X1 School Control 1 coded as Urban, all other coded as 0
Number of Children	0.07	0.32	0–3	X4 Number of Children
Race (Ref: White)
Black	0.11	0.32	0–1	X1Race
Latinx	0.17	0.37	0–1	X1Race
Other	0.19	0.39	0–1	X1Race
Relationships and Affiliations
Time Spent with Friends	3.09	1.73	1–6	S1HRFRIENDS “Hours spent hanging out with friends on a typical school day”
Males Better in English	2.52	0.93	1–5	S1ENGCOMP “How 9^th grader compares males and females in English or language arts” 1=Females are much better, 5= Males are much better
Employed	0.47	0.50	0–1	Recode of X3CLGANDWORK, Employed = 1; Not employed = 0

Table 2. Logistic regression on work discrimination on male students

Predictor Variables	All Students (n = 4667)			South/West Students (n = 2617)			Northeast/Midwest Students(n = 2050)
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7	Model 8	Model 9
Main Independent Variable
Participated in Sports	−0.24*	−0.20*	−0.20*	−0.32**	−0.28**	−0.28**	−0.15	−0.07	−0.07
	(0.78)	(0.82)	(0.82)	(0.72)	(0.75)	(0.75)	(0.87)	(0.93)	(0.93)
Demographic Variables
Socioeconomic Status	—	−0.28***	−0.28***	—	−0.32***	−0.32***	—	−0.23***	−0.24***
		(0.76)	(0.76)		(0.73)	(0.73)		(0.79)	(0.79)
Two Parent Household	—	−0.05	−0.04	—	0.02	0.03	—	−0.14	−0.14
		(0.96)	(0.96)		(1.02)	(1.03)		(0.87)	(0.87)
Urban	—	0.4	0.4	—	0.00	−0.00	—	0.06	0.07
		(1.04)	(1.03)		(1.00)	(1.00)		(1.07)	(1.07)
Number of Children	—	−0.13	−0.2	—	−0.4	−0.4	—	0.7	0.7
		(0.88)	(0.82)		(0.66)	(0.67)		(1.07)	(1.07)
Race (Ref. White)
Black	—	1.72***	1.72***	—	1.4***	1.4***	—	2.1***	2.1***
		(5.59)	(5.59)		(4.04)	(4.04)		(8.20)	(8.20)
Latinx	—	0.75***	0.75***	—	0.48**	0.48**	—	1.11**	1.12**
		(2.11)	(2.11)		(1.61)	(1.61)		(3.02)	(3.05)
Other	—	0.93**	0.93**	—	0.86***	0.86***	—	1.00***	1.01***
		(2.52)	(2.52)		(2.37)	(2.37)		(2.72)	(2.74)
Social Life and Views
Time Spent with Friends	—	—	0.02	—	—	0.03	—	—	0.01
			(1.02)			(1.03)			(1.01)
Males Better in English	—	—	−0.4	—	—	−0.2	—	—	−0.05
			(0.96)			(0.98)			(0.95)
Employed	—	—	−0.07	—	—	−0.09	—	—	−0.05
			(0.93)			(0.92)			(0.95)
Constant	−1.72	−2.70	−2.62	−1.705	−2.133	−2.130	−1.752	−2.316	−2.215
χ2	7.911	252.696	254.37	7.924	107.181	108.286	1.221	162.430	164.187
(df)	(1)	(8)	(11)	(1)	(8)	(11)	(1)	(8)	(11)
−2 Log likelihood	3678.72	3433.93	3432.25	2040.08	1940.82	1939.72	1637.20	1474.76	1276.08
Nagelkerke R^2	.003	.097	.097	.006	0.074	.075	.001	.139	.140

Note. Odds ratios in parenthesis; *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

7.1.1. Multivariate relationships

Our results indicate that the main independent variable (Participated in Sports) is negatively associated with work discrimination such that those students who participated in sports were less likely to experience work discrimination than their peers who didn’t. This relationship is statistically significant for the general sample (models 1–3) as well as for students in the South and West (models 4–6); however, this relationship is statistically insignificant for students in the Northeast and Midwest (models 7–9).

For demographic variables, SES is negatively associated with having felt discriminated against such that the higher the SES, the lower the likelihood of experiencing work discrimination. This finding is robust such that it is statistically significant across all models (models 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9).

Two parent Household, Urban School, and Number of Children was not statistically significant, and this was robust such that it held true across all models (models, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9).

Black, Latinx, and Students of Other Races had a higher likelihood of experiencing work discrimination than their white peers, and this finding is statistically significant and robust such that it holds true across all models (models 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9).

Time spent with friends, viewing males as better in English, as well as being employed were all statistically insignificant across all models (models, 3, 6, 9).

8. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend findings on work discrimination in the literature by focusing on white lower-class males, a neglected vulnerable discriminated group (Ng et al., 2020) and distinguishing how belonging or not belonging to an honor culture impacts them and other lower SES others’ work discrimination experiences. We also tested whether factors such as sports, key demographics (including SES, Region, Single-Parent Families, Urban High Schools, and Employment), or affiliations (i.e., childbearing, friendships, and gender-specific attitudes towards women) might ease the negative work discrimination experiences for honor culture males. Our findings indicated that playing sports in high school and having a higher SES did facilitate improvement in honor-culture male work experiences.

Previous research clearly shows that blacks, Hispanics, and women are the most discriminated-against groups at work (e.g., Gonzales et al., 2021). Still, research also indicates that low-income white men experience worse work discrimination compared to their upper-class white counterparts (Gonzales et al., 2021). However, their ability to cope with this treatment appears to be particularly inadequate given that they experience more amplified negative psychological effects (i.e., lower job satisfaction and higher work stress) than minorities when they perceive discrimination at work (Ng et al., 2020). Whites who experience discrimination are more likely to leave their current job and employer than minority employees. In fact, Ng et al. (2020) point out that consistent with the notion of white fragility, the deleterious impact of perceived discrimination on employees’ work outcomes may, in some cases, be stronger for white than minority male employees. A large concentration of the U.S. low-SES white population resides in honor cultures; so, we reviewed whether their honor values impact their corresponding discrimination.

Our results showed that differences exist between honor and non-honor cultures and mitigating factors. Overall, our findings show that white honor-culture males experience greater work discrimination than their higher-income white male counterparts. More specifically, we found that is a more salient effect for honor-culture versus non-honor-culture males in that the lower the SES a man has, the more he feels discriminated against at work three years after high school but honor-culture male students who participated in high school sports are also less likely to experience work discrimination than their peers who didn’t.

Generally, across all our tested models, Black, LatinX, and other-race males experience greater work discrimination than their white peers; but race was more related to work discrimination in non-honor cultures than in honor cultures where SES was the greater indicator. Consequently, it appears that there is greater discrimination based on race in non-honor cultures while SES is more important than race in honor cultures.

Honor cultures encourage their members, who are also from the lower classes, to communicate in a hyper-vigilant manner to uphold their honor in response to perceived slights and insults (Lin et al., 2022). This cultural characteristic sets honor-culture men apart from other populations, rendering their decorum of greater concern to authority figures. Though their aggressive behavior may not be present in the workplace setting, discriminatory perceptions exist, nonetheless. Additionally, discriminatory perceptions based on race still exist in non-honor cultures.

Evidence indicates that a person’s caste identity is an important determinant of opportunities in business (Deshpande, 2017, p. xxi) and for life in a fifth of the world’s population (Mosse, 2018). Although ordinarily those in the U.S. population do not think about caste, social class follows similar patterns in that networking opportunities and social class exclusions exist disproportionally for the lower classes in the U.S (Stephens et al., 2019); which, in turn, often impacts their employment opportunities (Mowbray et al., 2018). Our overall findings indicate how a low-SES is prominent in male work discrimination of all races; it is possible, however, that playing high school sports may provide a perceptual inoculation to remediate work discrimination effects among lower-SES honor-culture males.

8.1. Limitations

Though the findings of this study offer insights for future research and guidance for remediating work discrimination, this research has limitations. One limitation of this study is that the analysis was carried out on data collected by others. On the other hand, the data for this study came from a large longitudinal sample collected by competent academics. Additionally, this study relied on self-reported data. Using self-reported data has limitations and strengths. The disadvantage of self-reports is that respondents do not actually know what they are reporting but are describing how they think they are feeling, which is subjective. Even though responses are not entirely objective, self-reports can still yield useful results. This is because it is difficult to measure phenomena that exist inside a person’s mind, such as perceptions of being discriminated against, using other methodologies. Finally, it should be noted that changes in culture and work life have occurred since the data for this study were collected, however, the issues addressed in this study are still relevant as racism is rampant and still very much an issue today (Lee et al., 2019). Additionally, workplace discrimination has hardly been eradicated (Dhanani et al., 2018). Notwithstanding the limitations of this study, this research is useful when preparing students for the workplace or in advising managers when mentoring others to reduce the chances of experiencing discrimination in their workplace.

8.2. Implications

It is essential for educators and business professionals to address biases towards minorities and those who have a low-SES because discrimination influences graduate’s abilities to succeed in the workplace. Teachers have been shown to discriminate against boys in the classroom more than girls (Terrier, 2020); thus, the different experiences boys have in school growing up are reflected in their future work experiences. What is more, all races with a low-SES tend to experience greater work discrimination.

Differences in structural resources and individual skills contribute to social-class disparities in both U.S. gateway institutions of higher education and professional workplaces. Working-class people also experience cultural barriers that maintain these disparities. This research focused on one critical cultural barrier—the cultural mismatch between (a) the independent cultural norms prevalent in middle-class contexts and U.S. institutions and (b) the interdependent norms common in working-class contexts such as honor cultures. Such cultural mismatches can fuel social-class disparities in higher education and subsequent professional workplaces (Stephens et al., 2019).

8.3. Academician implications

While attention has been given to inclusion processes to integrate minority students into classrooms, we argue that white low-SES males should also receive efforts for their inclusion. Ideal educational approaches should recognize a broad and humane curriculum where teachers teach but also practice human equality (Kidd, 2020). How educators treat lower-class honor-culture males needs to be examined given associated long-term consequences of workplace discrimination.

Educators and school administrators need to be aware of the group and interpersonal undercurrents taking place in their classrooms and attempt to comprehend how some common school practices accentuate differences and segregate students in ways that further promote divisions and reinforce negative stereotypes (Juvonen et al., 2019). Additionally, a large portion of the U.S. workforce encompasses white low-SES males, so this study’s results potentially impact many people. Proactive school-based practices such as “built-in” preventions to increase social inclusion for all – including lower-class honor-culture males—would act as a possible beginning (Juvonen et al., 2019).

8.4. Future research

8.4.1. Workplace implications and future research

Given our findings that a low-SES in honor cultures is prominent in male work discrimination of all races, work discrimination consequences need to be addressed—particularly in honor-culture states. Working under discriminatory conditions often leads to depression, a lack of self-confidence, bitterness, and withdrawal from work (Dixon et al., 2002; Ng et al., 2020). Therefore, it is important to identify populations with unique characteristics that are subject to this treatment, in order to establish policies to remediate work discrimination. One study on race and discrimination in the workplace indicated that 28 per cent of African Americans, 22 per cent of LatinX and 6 per cent of white Americans have experienced blatant discrimination at work (Dixon et al., 2002). Based on our findings, it may be more likely to experience work discrimination based on race in non-honor cultures than in honor cultures—whose emphasis is more on SES. Although, most studies focus on the pressing issue of racial minorities in the workplace given their greater propensity to suffer discrimination, this study replicates and extends the literature on discrimination to place a focus on the workplace discrimination of honor-culture white males who appear to experience work discrimination more on the basis of their SES than their race. Future research should investigate the reasons that racial discrimination appears to be a greater factor in non-honor cultures than in honor cultures.

8.5. Sports and future research

This study’s results also show that white honor-culture male students who played organized sports in the ninth-grade experience less work discrimination three years after high school. Apparently, sports participation raises the stature of white honor-culture males—perhaps because athletic participation creates a connection. For instance, research shows that traits of confidence such as self-efficacy and self-esteem are correlated with sports participation (Ouyang et al., 2020). Team sports participation in adolescence also has been found to be associated with better adult mental health (Easterlin et al., 2019).

In general, sports programs have brought about positive outcomes by helping students learn how to communicate and how to create supportive relationships, for example, between adolescents and adults or coaches (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005). This type of relationship could also be a model for pro-social relationships between honor culture male employees and their boss. Thus, honor-culture white male students should be encouraged to participate in sports programs during high school. Future research should investigate why playing sports during high school diminishes the likelihood of future reported work discrimination.

8.6. SES implications and future research

More significant than sports, SES had the greatest impact on work discrimination in our study. This is particularly problematic because a lower SES makes it hard for people to achieve upward mobility. Although many believe that America is the land of opportunity, the disadvantaged disproportionately suffer from disease, depression, obesity, and diabetes (Everson et al., 2002; Stein & Ometa, 2020). Furthermore, the effects of economic disadvantage are cumulative, with the greatest risk of poor mental and physical health seen among those who experience continued hardship over time (Everson et al., 2002; Stein & Ometa, 2020). These negative effects could likely be compounded by greater work discrimination which places individuals within a cycle where each lack of opportunity adds to the difficulty of improving life chances. It is important that actors and institutions are alerted to this reality. Without institutional intervention, practically speaking, lower-SES-status employees are advised to present themselves judiciously (e.g., putting up a good front) to avoid the fallout from work discrimination emanating from their lower SES. Future research is necessary to help identify and isolate factors that help remediate discrimination aimed at low-SES populations. Progress toward these goals should also employ longitudinal studies.

Overall, our findings show that the higher the SES, the less likely people will feel discriminated against at work, but SES is more important in honor cultures where honor is more related to class than in non-honor cultures. Consequently, this study’s results highlight the particular significance a lower SES has for those from honor cultures. It appears that to some extent, a lower SES is likely to be self-perpetuating without careful attention to helping employees work their way out of it. When employees experience organizational justice—employee perceptions of fairness in the workplace—effective organizational functioning is enhanced through employee satisfaction and commitment (Graso et al., 2020), whereas discrimination incurs substantial costs to organizations (Cho, 2017; van Laar et al., 2019). If organizations act to avoid discrimination, and increase cultures promoting organizational justice, their workplace could become a more peaceful and productive place.

Correction

This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2269779).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rebecca S. Merkin

Rebecca Merkin is Professor of Communication Studies at Baruch College, the City University of New York, in New York, NY. Professor Merkin is the author of Saving Face in Business: Managing Cross-Cultural Interactions (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018). Her current research interests include communication in organizations, intercultural communication, sexual harassment in the workplace, job satisfaction, and social interaction processes such as impression management, facework communication, and job satisfaction.

Sigmund Shipp

Sigmund C. Shipp currently is an Associate Professor and the director of the undergraduate urban studies program at Hunter College CUNY. His research has ranged from a focus on worker-owned cooperatives, urban renewal, and neighborhood development in the African-American community to his current study of white poverty. His funded research has included support from the Ford and Anne E. Casey Foundations. He most recently developed the department’s first undergraduate/graduate course that focuses on issues of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation in urban areas.