Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi

Thanks to my great mentor and co-author, Daphna Oyserman.

Honor isn’t a relic of some "honor societies". It’s a universal human strategy, a moral language we all speak, even when we don’t call it “honor.”

Read the paper here: journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10....

In places where life is riskier or institutions are weaker, being honorable demands greater sacrifice (hyper cooperation), because proving trustworthiness is harder.

Across societies, what counts as “honorable” depends on which moral traits best signal trustworthiness, loyalty, fairness, courage, and on how costly it is to display them.

Our model differs between virtue signaling, which often involves low-cost, performative gestures, and honor, which requires genuine personal sacrifice; the cost itself is what makes the signal credible.

From this logic, we developed a 2×2 model showing how different moral traits and levels of personal cost produce distinct patterns of honor across societies.

We argue that honor is a costly signal of trustworthiness. People send costly signals about their moral character to be seen as reliable partners, increasing their chances of collaboration rather than being viewed as free riders.

So, in short: Honor = Morality + Cost.

From there came the Coherency Problem. Because each culture-based study defined honor differently, researchers created various measures, some focusing on family protection, others on violence, chastity, or reputation. The field splintered into sub-scales that don’t connect.

When psychologists later joined the conversation, they inherited that local focus. That’s the Localization Problem, explaining honor in terms of regional customs (duels, family defense, gender roles) without asking what psychological mechanism unites them.

They carefully documented customs, revenge, hospitality, family protection, modesty, and showed how honor organized social life. It was brilliant work, but descriptive. It treated honor as a cultural practice, not a psychological process.

For decades, psychologists have studied honor. Yet, the science of honor is still in theoretical trouble.
The confusion began with anthropology. Early anthropologists were fascinated by the honor codes of Mediterranean villages.

Is honor about reputation? revenge? violence? gender roles or…?
The universal mechanism of honor has remained unclear.
We propose a solution: Costly Morality Theory of Honor.
We argue that the DNA of honor is costly morality.
Just came out in PSPR
Read comments for more details ↓

Rewards bias self-evaluations of ability - Communications Psychology People often receive rewards for good performance, but what happens when rewards do not reflect ability? Two behavioral studies suggest that rewards can impact how we evaluate our own ability, above and beyond the impact of actual performance.

Very excited to share that my first paper, with Peter Mende-Siedlecki and @leorhackel.bsky.social, is out now in @commspsychol.nature.com! ☺️

Can getting more rewards make you feel more skilled, even if your performance doesn't change?

www.nature.com/articles/s44...

Your brain learns from rejection − here’s how it becomes your compass for connection Rejection can feel physically painful. It also provides a lesson for your brain on whom to connect with and how.

I wrote about our new research on how the brain learns from social rejection — and why that matters for connection

👉 theconversation.com/your-brain-l...

Thanks to my mentors, collaborators, and students.

A woman with pro-environmental signs. Stock photo.

A study finds that moral values predict environmental action as well as or better than political party affiliation. US counties where residents prioritize purity and fairness report higher environmental concerns and lower carbon emissions. In PNAS Nexus: academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/ar...