Reasoning about family honour among two generations of Hindu Indian-Americans

Abstract

To investigate reasoning about family honour, 128 first generation (mean age = 27.2 years) and second generation Hindu Indian-American adults (mean age = 24.7 years) were presented hypothetical scenarios in which male or female protagonists defied common Hindu customs (e.g., arranged marriage, intra-religion marriage and premarital sexual abstinence). Questions assessed beliefs about customs, connections to family honour and socio-moral orientations towards honour violations. Both generations perceived intra-religion marriage and premarital sexual abstinence to function for group identity-related reasons, such as preserving Hindu culture and maintaining Hindu identity. First generation participants judged defiance of marital and abstinence traditions in moral terms more often than second generation participants (mainly for female protagonists). Justifications for moral judgements referenced damage to group identity, including family image, Hindu identity and cultural preservation. Implications for theories of moral psychology are discussed.

Notes

1. Only Hindu Indian participants were included in the study as a limited attempt to control for the considerable religious and ethnic variation within India. Meanings around family honour and the kinds of practices that bear on honour likely vary considerably among Hindu, Sikh, Muslim and Christian Indian immigrants. That said, the category Hindu–Indian is itself broad and glosses over multiple regional and religious variations. For example family honour is especially relevant among Punjabi Hindus, but less so among Hindus from other regions (Mandelbaum, 1988). This was a necessary limitation of the present study in order to recruit a sufficient Bay Area sample.

2. The use of ANOVAS with dichotomous data has a precedent in this kind of research (see Wainryb et al., 2001, 2004) and is justified by the findings of a number of in depth analyses (Lunney, 1970; see also D’Agostino, 1971; Gaito, 1980).