An experimental investigation into perceptions of ...

Accepted Manuscript An experimental investigation into perceptions of disrespect during interpersonal conflict Richard K. Moule, Danielle M. Wallace PII:

S0049-089X(16)30440-9

DOI:

10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.08.001

Reference:

YSSRE 1954

To appear in:

Social Science Research

Received Date: 12 January 2015 Revised Date:

1 August 2016

Accepted Date: 3 August 2016

Please cite this article as: Moule, R.K., Wallace, D.M., An experimental investigation into perceptions of disrespect during interpersonal conflict, Social Science Research (2016), doi: 10.1016/ j.ssresearch.2016.08.001. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT An Experimental Investigation into Perceptions of Disrespect

An Experimental Investigation into Perceptions of Disrespect during Interpersonal Conflict

SC

RI PT

Perceptions of disrespect are central to everyday life. Despite the importance of disrespect across various social arenas, prior research has failed to empirically examine the factors influencing these perceptions. This problem is magnified when considering that perceptions or disrespect may vary across individuals and social situations alike. Drawing from theories of social geometry and symbolic interaction, this study examines the individual and situational characteristics that inform perceptions of disrespect. Using factorial vignettes, and a large sample of students, respondents were asked to assess actors in various conflicts. Results from a series of hierarchical linear models show that perceptions of disrespect vary across individuals. The content of situations appears to drive perceptions of disrespect more than individual characteristics. Implications for future research on disrespect are discussed. Keywords: Disrespect; Factorial vignettes; Social norms; Social situations

M AN U

Running Head: Perceptions of Disrespect Highlights:

Perceptions of disrespect are central to social life, but are understudied. Factorial vignettes are employed to assess perceptions of disrespect.

TE D

Perceptions of disrespect vary across individuals.

Social situations’ content drives perceptions of disrespect.

AC C

EP

Individual characteristics moderate situational influences of disrespect perceptions.

1


1. Introduction Respect, fairness, and equality of treatment are normative, desired elements of everyday life (Tyler 2006). These abstract concepts guide norms of interpersonal conduct, which

RI PT

individuals follow and expect reciprocated in social interactions (Carter 1998; Elias and Jephcott 1982; Gouldner 1960). Violating these norms is likely to evoke perceptions of disrespect (Miller 2001). The notion of disrespect is endemic to social relations, and perceptions of disrespect carry

SC

severe consequences. Strain and subcultural theories suggest disrespect removes valued elements of an individual’s identity and prompts violence (Agnew 2006; Anderson 1999). Procedural

M AN U

justice and defiance theories posit disrespectful treatment to reduce institutional legitimacy and compliance with the law (Sherman 1993; Tyler 2006). These perceptions extend beyond laws and violence to assessments of medical care (Lacy et al. 2004), education (Lickona 1996), and personal relationships (Rosenblatt et al. 1979). In short, perceptions of disrespect are a salient

TE D

part of everyday life, shaping how individuals engage social institutions and one another. Despite its relevance to these diverse social arenas, critical questions about disrespect remain unanswered. Prior accounts of disrespect have been descriptive in nature (e.g., Jacobs and

EP

Wright 2006). Consequently, research has yet to identify whether perceptions of disrespect vary across individuals and situations, and what elements of situations inform these perceptions

AC C

(Shwalb and Shwalb 2006). We thus ask: are perceptions of disrespect uniform or are they personally and situationally contingent? To better understand perceptions of disrespect, it is necessary to parse out the elements of situations that may color perceptions. Divergent approaches to situations emphasize either their structure or content. We draw on two theories, social geometry and symbolic interaction, to hypothesize the factors influencing individuals’ perceptions of disrespect. Social geometry (Black 1998; Cooney 1998) highlights situational characteristics like relational differences among actors and the presence of third parties in 2


conflicts. Symbolic interaction (Blumer 1969; Goffman 1959) focuses on subjective elements, like situational settings and content, and their influence on perceptions. Both theories also recognize that individuals import personal characteristics into situations. These characteristics

RI PT

may moderate the influence of situational elements on perceptions of disrespect (Short 1998). The present study examines social features influencing individuals’ perceptions of

disrespect during interpersonal conflicts. Using experimental data from a sizable sample of

SC

undergraduate students at a large southwestern university, we ask two research questions: (1) do individuals differentially perceive disrespect?, and (2) what characteristics influence these

M AN U

perceptions? Through a series of factorial vignettes (Rossi and Anderson 1982), respondents rated how disrespectful two actors—an instigator and a recipient—were in various social situations. To assess perceptions of disrespect, we use hierarchical linear models incorporating random intercepts, nesting vignettes within respondents (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). In doing

TE D

so, we are able to more closely identify the features of social life which influence these perceptions. As research on disrespect has so far been descriptive in nature, empirically unpacking the influence of these characteristics on perceptions of disrespect is an important next

EP

step for this literature. We begin by elaborating on the concept of disrespect and the theoretical perspectives that inform our study.

AC C

2. Theoretical Perspectives for Understanding Perceptions of Disrespect Disrespect refers to degradations of the self or others within social space (Honneth 1992;

Miller 2001). Past accounts suggest three necessary components for disrespect to be perceived: (1) an interaction or lack thereof (2) between two or more parties, (3) and violations of conduct norms, experienced or observed directly or vicariously (Anderson 1999; Miller 2001). Hence, disrespect reflects perceived violations of expectations of interpersonal behavior, interaction

3


rituals, or challenges to individuals’ social standing (Collins 2008; Gould 2003; Martin et al. 2012). Activities ranging from malicious gossip and rumor to direct insults and confrontations over property and persons are all potentially disrespectful. Conceived of this way, disrespect

RI PT

moves beyond “honor cultures” into everyday lives (Collins 2008; Goffman 1959). Consider this quote from one incarcerated offender:

SC

‘Right, some geezer pulled a glass bottle on me, he smashed it and said he was going to do me with it, yeah, so I said “Alright, hold up I’ll be back in a minute”…So I went and got a broomstick…I’m ready for combat…It was all over a banana. I used to be giving out the bananas [in the prison cafeteria], yeah, and…he had been given a banana with a bruise on it’ (Butler and Maruna 2009; 235).

M AN U

While this scenario may not be perceived as disrespectful by many outside observers, it highlights a number of situational elements that might influence such perceptions: relational differences (prisoner v. cafeteria worker), age differences, a setting (prison) where status is tenuous, gender, and interactional dynamics. These elements reflect the structure (where, when,

TE D

who) and content (what) of situations (Birkbeck and LaFree 1993; Stebbins 1972, 1981), and the characteristics individuals bring to situations. We draw from social geometry and symbolic interaction theories to better understand the influences on perceptions of disrespect.

EP

2.1 Social Geometry

Social geometry emphasizes structural dimensions of situations as an explanation for

AC C

behavior (Black 1998). Accounts of disrespect implicitly invoke social geometry, such as doctorpatient and police officer-civilian relations (Warren 2011; Wofford et al. 2004). One element of social situations is relational distance, or the intimacy between actors. As relational distance between actors increases, so too does the likelihood of experiencing social control (Black 1998). For example, Phillips (2003) interviewed men convicted of violent interpersonal crimes. The men reported greater tolerance of aggressive or disparaging behavior from family and friends

4


relative to acquaintances or strangers. Relational distance should similarly impact perceptions of disrespect, as different social norms exist for interactions between strangers, family, and peers (Collins 2008: 344). Hence, greater social distance between actors should correspond to stronger

RI PT

perceptions of disrespect during conflicts.

A second aspect of social geometry is third party presence in situations. Third parties shape the scope and nature of violence (Cooney 1998; Felson and Steadman 1983; Phillips and

SC

Cooney 2005), with their presence and behavior capable of aggravating conflict (Cooney 1998; Copes et al. 2013; Luckenbill 1977). The presence of third parties should similarly shape

M AN U

perceptions of situations, including disrespect. For instance, when offenders voice concerns about public displays of disrespect, they are concerned about the presence of third parties. Third parties to a situation witness disrespect and judge the actors within those situations, thereby impacting reputations and likely magnifying social tensions (Anderson 1999; Collins 2008).

TE D

Thus, an increased presence of third parties should result in stronger perceptions of disrespect. Social geometry offers a good starting point for identifying aspects of situations that may influence perceptions of disrespect, but it downplays the subjective salience of behavior within

EP

situations. By this, we mean that social geometry focuses only the conditions under which social control will be enacted for comparable behaviors. Perceptions of disrespect may also be

AC C

influenced by subjective situational elements. As such, it is necessary to integrate the insights of social geometry with a theory that recognizes the role of situational subjectivity for perceptions. For that, we turn to symbolic interaction. 2.2 Symbolic Interaction

Symbolic interaction emphasizes subjective aspects of situations (Mead and Morris 1962), insofar as individuals understand their world and conduct their behavior based on

5


interactions between people and objects. Individuals define and apply meaning to interactions through other participants’ behavior (Athens 1977). Assessments of behavior are grounded in conventional understandings of situations and contemporaneous situational features, such as the

RI PT

content of interactions between actors (Lal 1995). By emphasizing settings and actions within those settings, symbolic interaction provides further clarification of the social features which may inform perceptions of disrespect.

SC

Symbolic interaction holds that settings are “concrete, conventional social units” (Glaser and Strauss 1964: 670), such as schools, businesses, or homes, that contain specific expectations

M AN U

for social interactions and sanctions when these expectations are not satisfied (Goffman 1963a; Lawler, 2001; Reisig and Pratt 2011). This is true for both public and private settings (Brauer and Chaurand, 2010). For example, prior research characterizes public settings, such as parks or street corners, are prominent staging grounds where the dramaturgy of disrespect commonly

TE D

plays out (Anderson 1999). These settings are “carousing zones” where furtive gestures, stares, and smug looks precipitate conflict (Anderson 1999; Collins 2008: 242). This suggests that violations of conduct norms in public, relative to more private settings, would more readily and

EP

consistently be seen as disrespectful.

The content of situations is also a central focus of symbolic interaction, and different

AC C

types of conflict should elicit varied perceptions of disrespect. Analyses of situations highlight identity challenges as being disrespectful (Bourgeois 1996; Dobash and Dobash 1984; Gilligan 1996; Ness 2004; Sherwood 1965). For instance, words directed toward stigmatized traits are seen as uncouth (Blumer 1969; Goffman 1963b). These instances of verbal acrimony accelerate movement toward violence (Collins 2008: 338). Just as name-calling, profanity, and verbal insults are seen as disrespectful, so too are behaviors (Hepburn 1973; Luckenbill 1977). Actions

6


that fail to grant proper deference or recognition to others, ranging from failing to reciprocate gifts to engaging in physical confrontations and violence, all fall along a spectrum of increasingly disrespectful behavior (Anderson, 1999; Miller, 1993).

RI PT

Consistent with symbolic interaction, then, perceptions of disrespect should be shaped by the setting and actions occurring therein. The theory, however, provides little guidance regarding if and when specific settings or actions may engender perceptions of disrespect. If actors take

SC

into account all relevant objects during a situation (Lal 1995: 423), the factors shaping

perceptions of disrespect likely vary across individuals and situations (Felipe and Sommer 1966).

M AN U

This naturally draws attention to the intersection of individual and situational characteristics. 2.3 The Intersection of Personal and Situational Characteristics

The aforementioned theories provide adequate accounts of the dimensions of situations that may influence perceptions of disrespect. Both theories also highlight the role that personal

TE D

characteristics play in social situations. Social geometry recognizes characteristics such as race, age, and gender as proxies for status (Black 1998), which shape situational conduct. Symbolic interaction suggests that these same personal characteristics tap into distinct historical and

EP

cultural experiences that influence perceptions of the world (Lal 1995). These two theories thus provide two additional propositions for assessing perceptions of disrespect.

AC C

First, because personal characteristics are status proxies and tap into distinct historical

and cultural experiences, between-individual and between-group differences in perceptions of disrespect should exist (Jasso and Opp 1997). Second, although individual characteristics can directly influence interpretations of situations, these characteristics may also interact with situational elements. Individuals import personal characteristics into situations, which likely influence their perceptions of those situations (Short 1998). Certain characteristics may influence

7


sensitivity to particular actions. For example, individuals who are married may view the nature of flirting differently than individuals who are single, or there may be gender differences in tolerance for the use of abusive language (Downey and Vitulli 1987; Jay and Janschewitz 2008;

RI PT

Martin et al. 2012; Yarab et al. 1999). Given this recognition, it is necessary to examine whether individual characteristics moderate the effect of situational elements on perceptions of disrespect. 3. Current Study

SC

Despite its relevance for everyday life, little research has empirically examined the

characteristics influencing perceptions of disrespect (Shwalb and Shwalb 2006). The present

M AN U

study seeks to fill this gap by asking two research questions. First, do individuals differentially perceive disrespect? Second, what individual and situational characteristics influence these perceptions? Consistent with the theoretical frameworks outlined above, and prior accounts of disrespect, we derive three hypotheses regarding correlates of perceived disrespect. First,

TE D

consistent with social geometry, we anticipate that social distance between actors and the presence of third parties will influence perceived disrespect. As distance increases (or, actors are less familiar with one another), and more third parties are present in a situation, perceived

EP

disrespect is hypothesized to increase. Second, consistent with symbolic interaction, social settings and actor behavior should impact perceptions. We hypothesize that within settings,

AC C

interactions involving increasingly aggressive, vulgar, or hostile actions will correspond with increased perceptions of disrespect. Third, because personal characteristics shape perceptions of situations, these characteristics will moderate the effect of situational elements on perceptions of disrespect. That is to say, we hypothesize significant differences in the effects of situational elements between racial/ethnic, gender, and age categories. Examining these hypotheses will help clarify correlates of perceived disrespect.

8


4. Material and Methods 4.1 Data This study uses data consisting of 1,056 undergraduate students at a large southwestern

RI PT

university who were surveyed as part of a larger project examining perceptions of interpersonal conflict. Students from in-person and online classes across several departments were surveyed in spring of 2011. Instructors gave researchers permission to sample classes, and some faculty

SC

chose to give students extra credit for participation. As we describe next, these data are wellsuited for assessing perceptions of disrespect.

M AN U

Perceptions of disrespect are assessed using factorial vignettes, which combine survey and experimental features (Seron et al. 2006). Although vignettes are not necessarily “real,” they allow for elements of situations to be manipulated and for respondents to evaluate a situation without having actually experienced it (Rossi and Anderson 1982; Rossi and Berk 1997).

TE D

Vignette characteristics are randomized, creating an experimental treatment across respondents (Opp 2002). There are two steps to creating factorial vignettes: (1) defining which situational elements will be altered, and (2) building a vignette template. Isolating and varying elements of a

EP

situation can provide clarity regarding norm violation. Furthermore, the random assignment of these elements helps to reduce any bias that respondents may have regarding disrespect. We

AC C

focus on six situational elements.

The first element, conflict type, likely shapes perceptions of disrespect. Prior research

provides numerous examples of potentially disrespectful behavior (Anderson 1999; Jacobs and Wright 2006). We concentrate on three specific topics or types of conflicts: physical contact, debt, or flirting with a significant other. These topics were selected because they sufficiently reflect various problematic situations wherein normative expectations are evaluated (Collins

9


2008; Hewitt and Hall 1973). Indeed, the tensions surrounding money, lovers, and desires for physical autonomy and safety are commonly associated with disrespect and are the often the foundation of violence (Anderson 1999; Ericksen and Horton 1992; Gould 2003; Hughes and

RI PT

Short 2005; Sundstrom and Altman 1976). The second element, social settings, may also inform perceptions, since behavioral expectations vary across locations (Goffman 1963a; Jay and

Janschewitz 2008). The settings used are a family gathering, a school, and a bar. Depictions of

SC

disrespect tend to emphasize the public nature of affronts. These settings used here cover a variety of public and private spaces and the norms associated with those spaces.

M AN U

Vignette actors are identified as either the instigator, the individual who initiates the conflict, or the recipient, the individual receiving and reacting in the conflict (see Hughes and Short 2005: 47 for a similar approach). We include behaviors by both the instigator and the recipient as our third and fourth situational elements. The initial action by the instigator can be a

TE D

small bump or chest pointing. The recipient’s reaction to the instigator (timid or forceful) follows. Together, these actions reflect the interactional dynamics of situations and should impact perceptions of disrespect (Anderson 1999; Katz 1988; Luckenbill 1977). Indeed, by

EP

measuring and accounting for both actors’ behavior, it allows us to capture whether both actors can be perceived as acting disrespectfully within a situation. The fifth element, the presence of

AC C

third parties, varies in each situation to account for the influence of bystander presence in conflicts (Cooney 1998; Luckenbill 1977). The final element, the relationship between the instigator and recipient, taps into relational distance (Black 1998; Lewis and Gallois 1984). An example of these elements is in the following vignette, for a conflict involving

physical contact in a school, with variable elements in italics: Scott is walking down the hall in his school. The hall [is completely empty, has a few other kids in it, is very crowded]. Michael, another student that Scott [does not know at 10


RI PT

all, is familiar with but does not know well, knows very well], walks by and bumps Scott’s shoulder. As a result, Scott drops his books and Michael [keeps walking, apologizes]. Scott thinks the bump might have been on purpose. Scott [says, “Hey, watch out man!”, says, “What the hell is your problem?”, grabs Michael’s arm and says, “What the fuck is wrong with you, asshole?”]. Michael [looks back at Scott and keeps walking, turns and says, “What the fuck is wrong with you?”, shoves Scott and yells, “You’re about to have big problem, motherfucker!”]. The only stable aspects of the vignette above are the setting and conflict type; all other elements vary within vignettes. Below is a complete vignette:

M AN U

SC

Rick is hanging out by the bar at a local club on a Saturday night. The club has a moderate crowd that night. Carl, a customer that Rick does not know at all, walks by and bumps Rick’s shoulder, causing Rick to spill his drink. Carl ignores Rick and keeps walking away. Rick thinks the bump may have been on purpose. Rick says, “Hey, watch out man!” Carl shoves Rick and yells, “You’re about to have a big problem, motherfucker!” In the above example, Carl is the instigator and Rick the recipient. To be sure, these labels (instigator, recipient) were not used in the vignettes, lest they improperly color respondent perceptions. In each vignette, all instigators and recipients are male. Conflicts between males

TE D

tend to be brief and self-contained (Phillips 2003), ideally suited for vignettes. In total, there are nine root vignettes (social setting x conflict type) with several elements of the vignette manipulated. In total, 1,458 vignettes exist (9 root vignettes x 162 vignette

EP

permutations).1 Vignettes were randomly assigned;2 due to chance, few respondents (< 1%)

AC C

received the same combination of elements. The vignette randomization process differs between survey administration modes. For the in-person surveys, which involved a paper-based, selfadministered questionnaire, vignettes were randomized using a mail merge in Microsoft Word. Each respondent who received the in-person survey saw three vignettes, one from each setting. The web-based survey included six vignettes. Here, respondents were randomly assigned six out of nine possible setting-conflict type vignette pairs; all vignette bases can be seen in Appendix A.

11


Table 1 lists all vignette elements. Owing primarily to missing data through item non-response, the final sample has 3,738 vignettes nested within 921 respondents.3 [Table 1 about here]

RI PT

4.2 Dependent Variables

Our dependent variables are measures of how disrespectful the respondents perceived the vignette actors. Respondents were asked “How respectful or disrespectful was instigator’s/

SC

recipient’s behavior?” Perceptions of disrespect for each actor were rated on an eleven point scale, ranging from “Very Disrespectful” (-5) to “Very Respectful” (5) with “Neither Respectful

4.3 Independent and Control Variables

M AN U

nor Disrespectful” (0) in the center of the scale.4

We first include dummy variables for the conflict: Physical contact (reference), Debt, and Significant other/Flirting. Next, dummy variables for three settings are included: Family, School,

TE D

or Public (reference). We next include dummy variables for the severity of the instigator’s initial act as either Medium (“asks ‘What’s up loser? What do you think you’re doing?’” or “Hey, man! Am I ever going to get any of my fucking money back?”) or High (“Where the fuck is my

EP

money, asshole?” or “pushes his finger into [Recipient’s] chest and says, ‘Get out of here, asshole!’”). Low level acts (“Why are you talking to my girlfriend?” or “apologizes to

AC C

[Recipient]”) are the reference group. Dummy variables for the recipient’s reaction are also included. Moderate or medium reactions are “What the hell is your problem?” or “Man, you’ll get your money when you get your money!”, while High reactions are “shoves [Instigator] away saying ‘Man, you better back off before someone gets hurt!’” or “shoves [Instigator] and yells ‘You’re about to have a big problem, motherfucker!’” The reference category, Low reactions, include “[Recipient] turns around and leaves the picnic immediately” or “[recipient] stops talking

12


to Maria and runs away down the hall.” Social distance between actors is indicated by dummy variables: Distant [No relationship] (reference), Somewhat close [Acquaintances], or Close [Friends/Family]. Third party presence is measured with three dummy variables: None

RI PT

(reference), Some, or Many.5 Finally, dummies indicating whether the vignette was the second or third seen by the respondent account for the ordering of vignettes (Alexander and Becker 1978). Respondent demographics are also included. A dummy variable, Ever Married (1=yes),

SC

indicates the respondent is married, cohabitating, separated, divorced, or widowed. Typically these categories are distinct; because there was little variation in marital status, however,

M AN U

collapsing these categories was sensible. Next, we include dummies for age categories: 18-24 (reference), 25-29, and 30 and over. These age categories capture different development phases (emerging and early adulthood; Arnett, 2000), which may influence how individuals perceive the world around them. Consistent with the nature of student sampling, most respondents are in their

TE D

early twenties, with fewer in their 30s, 40s or 50s. Children is a dummy variable signaling that the respondent has children. We control for respondent race with dummy variables: White (reference), Black, Hispanic, or Other, meaning their race/ethnicity does not fall within the first

EP

three categories. We also include a dummy variable for respondent gender (1=Female). Lastly, we include whether respondents took the survey online (1=yes).

AC C

4.4 Analysis Plan

To analyze responses, we use a linear hierarchical model with a random intercept, nesting

vignettes within respondents. The first set of models is a baseline examination of the vignettespecific situational and individual characteristics on perceived disrespect for the instigator and recipient. The equation for level one of this model is: (Equation 1)

= + ∑ +

13


where is the perceived disrespect scale, ∑ represents the situational variable specific effects for the ith vignette in the jth respondent for p situational variables, and is the

random intercept. The equation for level two of the model is:

RI PT

within-vignette residual error. At level two, we model individual characteristics and include a

= + ∑ +

(Equation 2)

where is the vignette-specific intercept, is the average of the vignette intercepts,

SC

∑ represents individual-specific variable effects for the jth respondent for q individual-

M AN U

level variables, and is the difference between the vignette-specific intercepts and the predicted vignette average per respondent.

Our second set of models includes cross-level interactions between situational elements of the vignettes and respondent characteristics. When this is the case, the level two equation

TE D

includes equation 2 shown above and the following: (Equation 3)

= + ∑ γ

where is the vignette-specific slope for the vignette variable p and the jth respondent and

EP

∑ γ is slope for the interaction between the vignette-specific variable p and individualspecific variable v for the jth respondent.

AC C

Finally, with the exception of the unconditional models used to establish between-

individual variability, all models are separated by setting. Overall, there are 1,081 vignettes in the public (bar) setting, 1,404 vignettes in the school setting, and 1,253 in the family setting. Given that settings can exert different influences on these interactions, we run each of our models three separate times, once for family settings, public settings, and school settings, respectively.6 5. Results 14


Table 2 shows the summary statistics for the study variables. Recall that the disrespect scales are scored -5 (Very Disrespectful) to 5 (Very Respectful). On average, the perceived level of disrespect by the instigator is 2.04, with a standard deviation of 3.1; thus, instigators are seen

RI PT

as moderately respectful across vignettes. The average perceived recipient disrespect is 1.7 with a standard deviation of 2.9; thus recipients are seen as less respectful than the instigators. Note the large standard deviations on both the instigator and recipient variables; this suggests there is

[Table 2 about here]

SC

a high degree of variability surrounding perceptions of these two actors by respondents.

M AN U

The sample is demographically diverse. It is split fairly evenly between men and women (56% female), online and paper survey administration (67% took the survey online), and whites and non-whites (55% white). Of the non-white portion of the sample, the majority are Hispanic. Racial/ethnic and gender percentages are comparable to the compositional makeup of the

TE D

university from which respondents were surveyed in 2011, with a higher percentage of Hispanics in the present sample. Consistent with college student samples, most respondents (~70%) are between the ages of 18 and 24. Roughly 15% of respondents report having children, and a

EP

similar percentage report being in a relationship. We now turn to multivariate analyses. [Table 3 about here]

AC C

Table 3 shows both the unconditional models predicting disrespect by the instigator

(Model 1) and recipient (Model 2). The variance component for the random intercept in Model 1 is significant, indicating that perceptions of instigator disrespect vary significantly across respondents. For Model 1, the ICC, which explains the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable at level 2 (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002), 5% of the variation is at the individual-level. Model 2, predicting perceived recipient disrespect, tells a similar story. The

15


variance component is also significant, and the ICC slightly larger, with approximately 9.4% of the variation at the individual-level. Most variation in perceptions comes from the vignette, or the situational, level (1-.094 = .906 or 90.6%). Given the ICCs show similar, low percentages,

RI PT

we confirm that the social context of an interaction largely shapes how people view disrespect. As Abbott (1997: 1152) noted, “[O]ne cannot understand social life without understanding the arrangements of particular social actors in particular social times and places.” Although social

SC

contexts are important for perceptions of disrespect, individual characteristics can also influence these perceptions. We thus answer our first research question in the affirmative; that is,

M AN U

individuals do differentially perceive disrespect. We next turn to multivariate regression models, which we use to answer our second research question.

5.1 Perceptions of the Instigator Disrespect by Setting

Table 4 displays setting specific models of perceived instigator disrespect. Note that there

TE D

are different sample sizes by setting due to the randomization of the vignettes across respondents and the ability to give respondents more vignettes when they responded to the survey online. We begin with Model 1 in Table 4, examining perceptions of instigator disrespect in the public

EP

setting. Vignette characteristics dominate this model. Conflict type shapes perceptions of instigator disrespect. Instigators are seen as more disrespectful (significant, negative coefficient)

AC C

in debt- and flirting-based conflicts, compared to conflicts over physical contact. Instigators are perceived as more disrespectful when their initial actions are either medium or high (significant, negative coefficient) than when those initial actions are low. Similarly, when the recipient’s reaction is either medium or high, the instigator is also seen as more disrespectful than when the recipient’s reaction is low (significant, negative coefficient). Non-single respondents view the

16


instigator as more disrespectful than single respondents. Beyond relationship status, however, few respondent characteristics impact perceptions of instigator disrespect in this specific setting. Model 2 shows the effects of individual and vignette characteristics when the vignette

RI PT

takes place in the school setting. As in the bar setting, instigators are seen as more disrespectful (significant, negative coefficient) in debt- and flirting-based conflicts, compared to conflicts over physical contact. Instigators are also perceived as more disrespectful when their initial actions

SC

are either medium or high than when those initial actions are low. Similarly, when recipient’s reactions are either medium or high, the instigator is also seen as more disrespectful than when

M AN U

the reaction is low (significant, negative coefficient). What differs in this model, however, is that more individual characteristics are significant. Individuals over 30 years old or more were likely to perceive the instigator as more respectful than their younger counterparts in the school setting. Additionally, if the school setting was the respondent’s second vignette, they were more likely to

TE D

perceive the instigator as more respectful. Conversely, Black respondents were nominally more likely to see the instigator as more disrespectful (p < 0.10) in the school setting. Lastly, females were more likely to perceive the instigator as more disrespectful then males

EP

Model 3 shows the effects of individual and vignette specific characteristics when the vignette takes place in the family setting. As in the bar and school settings, instigators are seen as

AC C

more disrespectful (significant, negative coefficient) in debt- and flirting-based conflicts, compared to conflicts over physical contact. Instigators are perceived as more disrespectful when their initial actions are either medium or high than when those initial actions are low. Similarly, when recipient’s reactions are either medium or high, the instigator is also seen as more disrespectful than when the recipient’s reaction is low (significant, negative coefficient) in family settings. There is an additional situational effect that is significant in family settings: the

17


instigator-recipient relationship. When instigators and recipients are acquaintances, instigators are seen as more respectful than when the no relationship exists. Finally, when the respondent

5.2 Perceptions of the Recipient Disrespect by Setting

RI PT

has children, they are more likely to see the instigator as respectful.

Table 5 displays models predicting perceived recipient disrespect by bar, school, and family settings. Interestingly, there is greater variability in both the situational and individual

SC

characteristics which predict recipient disrespect. Beginning with Model 1, which is for the bar setting, we find that recipients are seen as more respectful when there are “some” third parties

M AN U

present when compared to no third parties present. Additionally, recipients are perceived as much more respectful in flirting based (v. contact based) conflicts. It is worth noting the size of this coefficient – 2.871 – is larger than most other coefficients in the models. Recipients are seen as more disrespectful when then instigator’s response to the affront is medium or high (v. low

TE D

response). Additionally, recipients are seen as more disrespectful when their response to the affront is high (v. low response). With respect to individual characteristics, having children and being female are nominally significant (p